Latest From Napo 223

Here we have the latest mailout:-

Dear Xxxxxxxx

Unions demand action on new Covid risks - important information for trade union members

In yesterday’s mail out, we advised members that Napo had been involved in urgent contact with employers following the new Lockdown announcements on Monday. Since then we now had an opportunity to consult with our sister trade unions and consider the information that has been reaching us from our activists who have been working extremely hard to respond to members enquiries across the NPS, CRCs, Prisons, Courts and Police Stations.

The attached Joint Unions' bulletin sets out a number of concerns that are contained in a joint letter to the Director General Probation READ MORE HERE. News on developments in Probation Northern Ireland and Cafcass will be cascaded via Napo NI Branch and the Napo Family Court Section respectively.

In advance of the important meeting with NPS/HMPPS senior leaders tomorrow, the unions have made it very clear that urgent action needs to be taken in response to the issues that we have raised. The unions also intend to seek engagement with Justice Ministers about the disconnect between their Government's unrealistic expectations of service delivery against the reality of the Covid Pandemic and the very serious threats that this poses to the wellbeing of all our members.

More updates for members will be issued as soon as there is more to report.

Ian Lawrence Katie Lomas
General Secretary Napo Chair

--oo00oo--

UNIONS DEMAND ACTION ON NEW COVID RISKS 

Napo, UNISON and GMB/SCOOP have written to Amy Rees, Director General for Probation, today to request urgent talks on the HMPPS response to the Government’s announcement on Monday of a second severe lockdown in England and Wales with effect from today. 

The new lockdown is the result of the exponential rise in Covid cases across our two nations which in turn has been caused by the spread of the highly contagious and therefore much more dangerous new variant of the virus. 

We understand that at one AP in the North West, 15 residents are self- isolating of whom 13 have tested positive, alongside 5 members of staff of whom 3 have tested positive for Covid. These figures bring home the seriousness of the rise in cases and the risks now faced by our members. 

We understand that EDMs are currently being reviewed, but we do not consider that this is an adequate response by itself. While some Regional Directors have been positively engaging with local TU reps to discuss the EDM reviews, some have insisted that they will only share the EDM once it has been reviewed which is not, in our view, proper engagement. 

The unions have therefore asked Amy Rees as a matter of urgency that: 

1. HMPPS provides us with a risk assessment of the new variant of the Covid virus to allow us to properly understand the risks it poses to our members and service users and to ensure that NPS is taking all necessary steps to protect its workforce. 

2. Regional Directors convene meetings with their local trade unions to discuss the EDM reviews and to agree the necessary measures to protect staff including those staff working in other workplaces such as prisons, courts and partner agencies. 

3. A meeting is convened between the unions and the Residential Division to agree appropriate measures within the AP estate. 

4. All face to face meetings with service users migrate to on-line platforms with only the most pressing public protection risks dealt with in person. 

5. RAG ratings are reviewed, with particular reference to the concerns the unions expressed prior to Christmas in respect of London and other areas with very high infection rates remaining on amber and the message that is sent to staff when they are told that the RAG rating only refers to service delivery and not to their personal safety in the workplace. 

6. All Regions ensure that positive Covid test data for staff/service users is communicated in real time to trade union representatives. 

7. The advice and guidance for clinically extremely vulnerable and clinically vulnerable staff is reviewed with immediate effect to provide the necessary protection for these employees in respect of the new variant. 

8. A review of staff cover and multi-site working arrangements takes place to ensure that asymptomatic staff are not unwittingly carrying the virus into other workplaces. 

9. A referral is made up to Ministers to the effect that it is no longer possible for NPS to provide business as usual cover to courts under circumstances where staffing shortages are putting unreasonable pressure on those who remain in the workplace and sentencers are limiting the use of virtual hearings. 

10. An urgent review of staff well-being and measures is put in place to support staff during this second lockdown. 

ADVICE TO MEMBERS 

The three unions are working hard to secure the best protection for members against the new Covid variant and the steep rise in cases in the population. If you have any concerns about your personal safety, or the way in which you or your colleagues are being asked to work, please speak as a matter of urgency to your local union rep or branch.

Bullshit Bulletin 8

As the reality begins to dawn that 'key worker status' actually means sweet FA in terms of who is going to pay for Covid, I suspect these monthly upbeat 'strengthening probation - building confidence' bullshit bulletins will be viewed with increasing derision. But such is the reality of being part of the command and control structure of a government department everybody and especially one working 'at pace' (sic)

Probation Changes Bulletin - Issue 8 - November 2020

1. Introduction from Amy Rees, Director General of Probation and Wales

Welcome to the latest bulletin, reporting on key updates and progress across our three probation programmes – reform, workforce and recovery. You will read more on these from Jim Barton and Ian Barrow below.

As we continue to operate under restrictions, I wanted to thank all our staff for their continued professionalism and dedication, a view echoed by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Probation who recently applauded staff for their compassionate professionalism during COVID. It makes me personally very proud to lead such a team, particularly during these times.

Across the probation service, our focus is on ensuring the health and safety of our staff and service users. We will follow the principles of our COVID Roadmap to Recovery, prioritising public protection and risk management. We will continue to work under our established Exceptional Delivery Model Framework with our senior leaders making decisions on how best to deliver our core services in their regions based on local circumstances. We will continue to deliver Accredited Programmes and Unpaid Work wherever possible. Our Approved Premises will also remain open, with local amendments to how they operate where necessary.

Planning for the winter months and the possible scenarios we may face continues to be a major focus for us and we are doing this in collaboration with our key partners. We have learnt a great deal from the way we have responded to coronavirus and will be building this in to our plans wherever possible.

I hope you find this bulletin helpful and we look forward to updating you on the latest developments in the next issue.

2. Update from Jim Barton, SRO, Probation Reform Programme

Work continues at pace on the planned probation reforms as announced in June by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP and we are on track for the safe and stable transition to the Unified Model by June 2021. Recent highlights include:

Management Structures: the future structure of Probation Delivery Units is designed, as is how we will manage the Dynamic Framework, and the specialist public protection team that will sit in each region. We have a proposal for how Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes will be managed, but this remains subject to confirmation.

Role Allocations and National Agreement: CRCs have been working through the assignment of their staff - this determines whether and where staff are assigned to transfer, to the National Probation Service (NPS) or to one of our intervention providers. We have also reached agreement with our recognised Trade Unions on the key protections that will be afforded staff transferring from CRCs in June next year.

Estates: a detailed estates strategy has been developed for each regional probation director. The strategy outlines where some estates changes will happen now and where changes will happen next year. There are currently 19 projects running to improve NPS estates.

Target Operating Model (TOM): Work continues on the next iteration of the probation operating model to show what the future sustainable model for the probation system will look like, in particular, after transition in June 2021. Broadly speaking, the TOM sets out our commitments to providing:

• New regional probation leadership structures that enable greater local accountability, partnership working and delivery of services that more closely meet individuals’ diverse needs.
• Investment in our workforce to support their continuous development, attract and retain talent, create a diverse workforce, foster confident leaders and promote wellbeing.
• Improvements to Sentence Management delivery to encourage greater focus on effective supervision to help protect the public and promote rehabilitation wherever possible.
• Improved interventions that respond to an individual’s specific needs. This includes improvements to the delivery of Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes, the introduction of Structured Interventions and securing the expertise of other sectors in the delivery of rehabilitative and resettlement services.
• Modernisation of our estate and technology so that our physical spaces create positive working environments and we reduce duplication in our systems, creating efficiencies and enabling better data recording and analysis to facilitate more effective decision-making.

A draft has been developed and shared internally. Key stakeholders will also be given early sight and the opportunity to review, before publication in February.

3. Update from Ian Barrow, SRO, Workforce Programme

We are continuing to drive change through each of our commitments set out in the Probation Workforce Strategy launched this summer. As part of this work the NPS Smarter Working Initiative was launched on Wednesday 28 October which builds on our commitments to enable our people to work more flexibly, and sets out our promises to provide:

• A better place to work, increasing flexibility, work life balance and choice of working location balanced against operational need.
• A modern organisation with greater adoption of new technology.
• In our new offices, fit-for-purpose workspaces designed for collaboration. In our existing offices, we want to make better use of space to support Smarter Working.
• Working remotely more often – including the flexibility to choose where to work up to 50% of the working week, depending on the needs of the business and colleagues.

We appreciate that the opportunity to work remotely up to 50% of the time might not be possible for some staff, particularly those working in prisons and in Approved Premises and we are finalising specific expectations for these areas. However, increased remote working remains our aspiration.

PQiP: In addition, we are pleased to say that we are on track to exceed our commitment to recruit 1,000 PQiP learners this financial year. We recruited 457 learners in July 2020 and are set to recruit over 600 new learners, our largest cohort yet, in January 2021.

4. Update from Ian Barrow, SRO, Recovery Programme

We have carefully reviewed the implications of the national restrictions introduced in England and Wales and are continuing to follow the principles of our Roadmap to Recovery to safely deliver our core probation services. We are using our established exceptional delivery framework as we have been doing over recent months to prioritise public protection and risk management, alongside the safety of our staff and service users. Our Regional Probation Directors and CRC Chief Executives will continue to make decisions on how best to deliver probation services in the regions based on local circumstances and staffing levels.

The programme has continued to make good progress where it has been safe to do so since our last bulletin was published. There continues to be a steady increase in offices reopening and the last of the Approved Premises which had to close due to Covid-19 has now re-opened. We have seen a gradual increase in office appointments and as a result, a reduction in telephone contacts. In addition, we are also still seeing a steady increase in the delivery of Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes.

As always, and echoing Amy’s comments above, I’d like to thank our operational and programme staff who are continuing to drive this important work forward.

Recall and Scapegoating

Yesterday saw publication of the second part of the Probation Inspectorate's report into the handling of the Joseph McCann case. There remains widespread anger and concern amongst practitioners that they continue to be 'scapegoated' for the consequences of what are essentially organisational policies and procedures.     

Foreword 

The power to recall a person to prison is a significant one. It is one of the most important decisions probation officers make and over 27,000 of these decisions were made in 2019/2020. The immediate consequences for the recalled prisoner are self-evident, but the decision also has consequences for victims, potential victims and the public at large. In part one of this independent review, published in June 2020, we reviewed the case of Joseph McCann and expressed serious concerns about decision-making in relation to recall during the period 2017 to early 2019. We have not found a repeat of those concerns in part two, our review that looks at current recall culture and practice in the period since then. Probation staff are clear that public protection is the primary concern in recall decisions, and this was reflected in the cases we reviewed. 

Recall decisions are often complex and frequently rely on the analysis of detailed information and behaviour. It is important, therefore, that they are supported by a methodical, consistent and fair process. The National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) currently have different processes for recalling individuals, and these are applied inconsistently. It is important that recall decision-making is prioritised and operational staff are given the necessary time and management support to make effective decisions. Probation staff have concerns about the professional and personal consequences if they fail to instigate a recall and a high-profile incident subsequently occurs. A professional culture needs to be at the heart of recall decisions. This requires a consistent process and operational staff having the confidence that they will be supported if they make considered, defensible decisions. 

We have found that the current system for licence warnings, which are designed to prevent the need for a recall, varies both between and within organisations and its effectiveness has not been evaluated. Nearly all of the cases we reviewed where a warning had been issued still resulted in recall, raising questions about the impact of this approach. Furthermore, license warnings are not subject to additional scrutiny outside of the normal management oversight of cases. This requires urgent attention. It potentially results in inconsistent licence enforcement and is also unfair from the perspective of procedural justice. Alternatives to recall are often used alongside licence warnings, but the effectiveness of this strategy has not been reviewed since it was implemented in 2017. We are satisfied that when alternatives to recall are considered they are balanced against the requirements of public protection, but there is inconsistency in both their accessibility and use. 

Decisions on recall and licence warnings often rely on the judgement of individual practitioners, but these decisions and practice judgements are not routinely monitored for bias and unconscious bias. Disproportional outcomes, particularly for black, Asian and minority ethnic service users, have been identified in other parts of the criminal justice system, but they are not routinely monitored in relation to recall decisions. This needs to be addressed to ensure that recall decisions are routinely scrutinised and any learning can inform improvements in probation practice. 

Decisions on recall and licence warnings are complex. Across the nine organisations we inspected, there were examples of responsible officers taking recall decisions to protect victims, potential victims and the public. There were also examples of probation staff coordinating comprehensive support packages for individuals in an attempt to break entrenched patterns of criminal behaviour. This professionalism should be built on with the aim of developing a confident, professional organisational culture. To this end, our recommendations are designed to strengthen the process and support probation staff in their decision-making.

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Executive summary 

Context of the review 

On 05 March 2020, the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice announced that an independent review of the case of Joseph McCann would be undertaken by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. The review would be in two parts. Part one was to focus on the supervision of Joseph McCann by the National Probation Service (NPS) and part two would review the current probation culture and practice in respect of recall. Part one was published on 30 June 2020. This report constitutes part two of the review. 

Part two was completed against the background of COVID-19. Nine probation providers were involved in the review and 39 meetings with managers and operational staff took place remotely via video or telephone conference during July and August 2020. We inspected a sample of 50 release licence cases that had been recalled or had warnings issued between October 2019 and February 2020. Where available, we also interviewed the allocated responsible officer. The case sample predated the probation exceptional delivery model (EDM) introduced at the end of March as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. The EDM ensures that public protection continues to be the priority for probation providers. The learning and recommendations from this inspection apply to probation practice both before and after the introduction of the EDM. 

Recall decision-making and threshold 

We found that public protection and the protection of victims are central to probation service decision-making on recall. Operational staff are clear that this is the primary focus of recall practice. Alternatives to recall are routinely considered where appropriate, but this does not compromise the focus of decision-making on public protection. 

In 2019/2020, 34 per cent of recalls included a failure of the service user to keep in touch with their supervising officer as the reason. Responsible officers make impressive efforts to engage non-compliant service users and often put comprehensive support packages in place. These cases are resource-intensive and frequently result in a recurring cycle of release and recall. 

Licence enforcement and recall requires a consistent process that must allow for individualised decision-making. It is rarely a simple decision and probation practice must allow for the key information to be assessed and reviewed. Responsible officers require the necessary time and management support to obtain and analyse information and make good decisions. Office practice and procedures should enable such a process to ensure that recall and warning decisions are defensible and not overly cautious. We found that this varied between offices and organisations. 

Probation organisations have communicated the Recall, Review and Re-Release of Recalled Prisoners Policy Framework (RPF)2 to their staff, but staff and managers’ knowledge of the specific processes and criteria is inconsistent. Operational staff were, however, clear that decisions on recall must focus on increases in the risk of serious harm linked to previous patterns of behaviour. Communication of the revised framework has been stronger in the NPS than in the CRCs, but communication within individual divisions has not been part of a coordinated national strategy. This lack of coordination has reduced the impact of a key national policy. 

Licence warning and alternatives to custody 

A breach of licence conditions does not automatically result in the instigation of recall. Where probation providers assess that individuals can still be managed safely in the community, they can issue a licence warning. Licence warnings can be accompanied by amended licence conditions. These may include increased levels of contact; cooperating with activities such as drug testing; or additional restrictions in relation to residence or curfew. 

Current licence warning practice is inconsistent both between and within organisations. There are inconsistencies in the threshold, recording and delivery of warnings. This makes it difficult to identify cases where the service user has been warned and not recalled and to operate effective quality assurance processes. In most cases where warnings have been issued, recall to prison is still the eventual outcome. This underlines the need to review practice and issue a revised licence warning process. 

Practitioners now take a balanced approach when deciding between recall and alternatives to recall, and this approach is considered good practice across organisations. However, access to and use of alternatives to recall, such as approved premises (APs) and electronic monitoring, are inconsistent. Probation organisations have not analysed the effectiveness of the overall strategy on alternatives, or whether it averts or simply delays an eventual recall. The role of APs as an alternative to recall requires clarification. NPS responsible officers, in contrast to AP managers and staff, regard APs as an important alternative to recall.

Quality assurance 

Rates of recall vary both between and within organisations. This variation cannot be accounted for solely by the circumstances of the individual case. In the NPS, divisions receive information on performance on a quarterly basis. This includes the number of recalls and the reasons for them, along with the number of licence variations. There are no performance targets in relation to recall numbers, but the reports highlight local delivery units where recall rates significantly deviate from the national average. NPS divisions use this information to monitor variations. The CRCs generate information on recalls as part of their enforcement monitoring. Again, there is no performance target for the number of recalls, and organisations do not monitor any actions taken as an alternative to recall. CRCs do, however, monitor the rates of recall. For example, one CRC identified a low rate of recalls and amended its practice as a result. 

The routine quality assurance of recall decisions is reliant on each senior manager’s endorsement of the practitioner’s decision as part of the decision-making process. Licence warning decisions are not the subject of any targeted monitoring or review. Some probation providers use the national Alternative to Recalls and Recall Report Part A quality assurance tool, 3 but this focuses on recall cases only rather than looking also at cases where recall was decided against. NPS London and NPS North East have undertaken their own quality assurance and dip-sampling initiatives to monitor recall cases for disproportionality. However, probation providers do not routinely review recall decisions to check for bias and unconscious bias. 

Organisational culture 

Recall culture and practice are directly influenced by national policy and high-profile serious case reviews. In recent years there was a widespread belief among operational staff that recalls should be minimised. More recently there have been fears that responsible officers will be unfairly held responsible for any adverse consequences resulting from a failure to instigate recall. Both perceptions undermine professional decision-making, which must be at the core of the process. The current correct balance between alternatives to custody and public protection is understood by operational staff. To ensure operational staff do not become too cautious in their approach, there needs to be a consistent decision-making process both for recalls and decisions not to recall. The development of a professional culture depends on operational staff feeling confident that defensible, professional decisions will be supported if a serious incident does occur involving a person under supervision. 

There are significant differences in recall practice and culture between the CRCs and NPS divisions. These include differences in the level of management endorsement; staff expectations; the understanding of the RPF; and differences in types of recall. These differences were recognised by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Wales in the training activities its staff undertook in the three months after reunification in December 2019. The NPS divisions and CRCs in England should learn from this example. Given the importance of recall decision-making, the NPS and CRCs should prioritise communicating the RPF to staff and embedding a consistent recall process when they are re-joined. 

Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) and the post-recall process 

The relationship between the central HMPPS PPCS and probation providers operates efficiently. Emergency and out-of-hours recalls are processed promptly, and the PPCS’s advice on the recall threshold is viewed positively by both senior and operational managers. 

Following a standard recall, both responsible officers and the PPCS can review cases and decide to re-release a recalled prisoner under the executive release scheme. The operation of executive release is inconsistent. Responsible officers are uncertain about the operation of the process and the number of releases varies between providers. Consideration for release should not depend on which organisation a person is supervised by. The administration and use of the process should be reviewed. 

The PPCS must refer all standard recall cases to the Parole Board within 28 days of a prisoner’s return to prison. This includes consideration of the Part B risk management report that responsible officers submit to the PPCS within 10 days of a prisoner’s return to custody. This timescale allows time for prisoners to make representations to the Parole Board on the contents of the document. Part B risk management reports include a recommendation as to whether the prisoner should be re-released. The current process for completion is not working efficiently. To complete the report within the timescale, responsible officers must have quick access to prisoners immediately after their return to prison. Access, however, is inconsistent and responsible officers are frequently left without the necessary information to make an informed recommendation on re-release.

--oo00oo--

Comments from yesterday:-

Probation staff felt “pressure” from the government to send fewer criminals back to prison for committing new crimes or breaking their licence conditions, a watchdog has found. HM Inspectorate of Probation said a sharp drop in the rate of recall to prison across England and Wales from 2016 onwards was linked to policy changes, and that a reversal was only sparked by a high-profile murder case. Senior National Probation Service (NPS) leaders said that when an “alternatives to recall” strategy was implemented four years ago, there was "pressure from the Ministry of Justice to reduce the number of recalls in their divisions". Someone should take the hit for this.

******
"I agree. I really don't think it's fair for Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers to be SFO'd, investigated, suspended then sacked for not recalling Offenders when encouraged and pressured not to recall. I now upload all email communications to Delius that involve recall or not to recall decisions, this would have been unthinkable for me a decade ago."

Latest From Napo 219

Here is a slightly edited version of the latest mailout from Napo sent yesterday:-

Solidarity with all affected by the tragedy in Beirut

Some members will have been directly affected by the explosion in Beirut this week which has wreaked havoc on residents of Beirut and Lebanon as a whole. Napo would like to express its solidarity and condolences to all those affected by the tragedy and hope that the City and people of Lebanon can recover from the devastation.

Advice for members who have been shielding or have additional vulnerabilities to Covid-19

Government guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID -19 officially changed on the 1 August 2020. Napo advises that members who have been shielding should continue to be vigilant and continue to work from home wherever possible. ‘Shielded workers’ are those with health conditions that make them more likely to experience serious complications from a Covid-19 infection, so they have needed to follow more stringent guidance on social isolation.

The government decision to pause the guidance on shielding in Napo’s view is premature. Therefore, Napo has been in consultation with the employers to make sure that any individual who was previously shielding is not forced to come back to the workplace and staff should continue to work from home if they are able to do so. If any member of staff is considering returning to the workplace or is asked to come back into the office, your employer must provide you with an individual risk assessment so that this can be undertaken in a Covid secure way.

Napo advice is that all staff who are deemed to be at heightened risk e.g. clinically extremely vulnerable, in the vulnerable group and/or from a BAME background should formally request an individual risk assessment be undertaken before returning to the workplace. If you encounter any difficulty from the employer providing this essential protection please contact Napo at info@napo.org.uk and we can assist you and make sure that your health and safety is protected.

Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs)

The OMiC implementation consultation has re-started following a pause due to the deployment of some project staff to frontline roles. The main focus of initial discussions has been the return to workplaces and the changes to EDMs for the prison OMUs. Napo health and safety reps in the local branch should be consulted on the OMU EDM and risk assessment as well as the EDM and risk assessment for any related functions that will involve Probation staff. Any members working in prisons should make sure EDMs and risk assessments have involved consultation with them and local health and safety reps and ask for a review if they haven’t.

The overarching advice remains the same for NPS staff working in prisons as for other workplaces, if you are able to work at home you should do so. There were examples as we moved into lockdown of some resistance to this in some prisons, if any members are experiencing difficulties in following this advice they should liaise with local reps to raise this first with the Head of Stakeholder Engagement and refer to Katie Lomas for escalation if this is not successful.

At the same time as discussing the return to workplaces we have also continued to raise issues about the OMiC model, workloads, lack of admin support and issues with the prison SPO role. We will be getting a full report back on the issues raised at our next meeting with the OMiC team.

Court Recovery Consultation

Siobhan Foreman is Napo’s lead for Court work. She is now meeting regularly with the NPS Lead Director for Courts.

Risk Assessments

Risk assessments should be in place for Courts, including the probation areas in the Court buildings. These should be live documents and can be reviewed at any time, especially with changes to circumstances or fresh concerns. Work is underway to determine maximum capacity for NPS staff returning to work in Courts.

Access to Court entrance and exit is varied and remains an ongoing issue for some NPS Court staff. We have been advised a working group has been set up to address this issue and discussions are ongoing between HMCTS (HM Court and Tribunal Service) & HMPPS. The barriers appear to be the unsuitability and footfall of some Court buildings, however, HMPPS are confident that the issue will be resolved over the coming months and 99% of NPS Court staff will have access to HMCTS staff entrance and exits.

Extended Working Hours/Recovery/ Court EDM

We are told that the HMCTS strategy regarding the backlog of cases will be launched very shortly. There is a significant backlog of cases and nearly every case is estimated to take 25% longer than previously due to Covid-19.

HMCTS will adopt a 4-Pillar approach by;

1. Use of Nightingale Courts which can be set up in other suitable establishments, following appropriate risk assessments.
2. Extended operating hours/staggered operating hours with overtime available and weekend working. It has been confirmed this will be on a strictly voluntary basis and payments will be on NNC terms. There is an acknowledgment that there are not enough Court staff to meet the need and discussions are ongoing about how to address this issue. Full consultation with unions regarding this will take place prior to decisions being made.
3. Extend use of IT, for example Cloud Video Platform for PSR interviews, remand courts etc.
4. Maximise use of Court estate. There are some Courts which are not being used to their full capacity or have been closed and work is ongoing to look at the suitability of opening Court rooms.

If you are a Napo member either managing or working in Courts and have any queries or concerns you would like Siobhan to raise at these meeting please email.

Napo AGM 2020 - Motions

Just a reminder that the deadline for the submission of motions to this year's AGM is noon on Wednesday 12 August 2020. All the information you need and forms etc. can be found HERE.

Napo HQ

Napo At Work in London

London remains by far the largest Napo Branch and they had their virtual AGM on Friday. Although not quorate, which is understandable given present difficult circumstances, the comprehensive Branch Reports and draft national AGM Motions provide much insight into current events and concerns as Probation enters yet another period of upheaval and uncertainty.

I'm extremely grateful to the reader for forwarding the following and although a long read, I'm sure much will be of interest to the wider probation community as well as staff everywhere trying to cope with many of the same issues covered here. Material has been omitted where I feel it would be of little interest or relevance to a wider audience. 

Motions for National AGM

Motion 1 : Virtual Supervision?

This Branch believes the relationship between a client and their Probation Officer is one best built on face to face contact. This Branch understands the MOJ has recently interviewed some staff currently working from home about the effectiveness of ‘remote’ supervision.

This Branch has been left with the distinct impression the MOJ interviewers had limited knowledge about the depth and skills involved in managing Probation clients and may be seeking ways in which to justify shutting offices and moving towards more remote working outside of COVID recovery. This contradicts the findings of recent Inspection reports criticising various CRC’s for poor risk management via remote supervision.

We believe long term remote working, instead of face to face Supervision, will seriously limit our ability to assess and manage risk and impact on building relationships within which “interventions” and influence can take place. Thereby damaging our effectiveness and our personal and professional reputations.

We instruct NAPO officers and officials to ensure any move to dilute face to face Supervision is vigorously challenged unless backed up by evidence and appropriate training.

Motion 2 : Re-Set Unconscious Bias Training

The Black Lives Matter campaign/movement has highlighted the important issue of race inequality within the Criminal Justice System.

Training should provide the basis of support and knowledge to ensure staff are culturally aware of the diverse needs of the various communities we work with.

This Branch believes that the current NPS E- Learning module on Unconscious Bias is insufficient to effectively challenge or enhance cultural understanding/anti-discriminatory practice within the rich, diverse working environment of Probation and Family Court staff.

This Branch believes, in order, to achieve a level of cultural competence within Probation and the Family Courts we need to have additional class room learning to support, embed and enhance the E-Learning which is on offer. Truly effective race equality/anti-discriminatory practice training requires the opportunity to challenge and exchange individual experiences.

This Branch instructs Napo Officers and Officials to work alongside the Professional and Training Network to impress upon the HMPPS Learning and Development team the need to improve and enhance the learning experiences of all staff in Probation and Family Court settings.

Motion 3 : Homeworking

This Branch believes homeworking, across Probation and Family Court Services is becoming the ‘new normal’ as the result of the pandemic.

This Branch understands whilst homeworking has benefits for many it needs to be recognised not all people are able to work effectively from home and need better support and sometimes adjustments to workloads when required to.

We also note there is a vast difference between voluntary homeworking and lockdown homeworking.

This Branch instructs NAPO Officers and Officials to develop better, inclusive homeworking policies to support all staff under both voluntary and enforced homeworking situations and campaign and negotiate with our relevant organisations for their adoption.

Motion 4 : Prison OM Role Boundaries

This Branch believes probation staff working in prisons are not being properly recognised or valued for their roles and their role boundaries appear to be unclear to many probation, prison and parole board staff and colleagues. We believe all our staff should be equally valued.

This Branch notes redeployment of Prison Probation staff as part of the COVID-19 EDM demonstrated the lack of importance placed on their day to day work by the Organisation. Requests from Parole Boards indicate they are viewed as administrators. Other colleagues have used them as messenger services.

This Branch views reunification as an opportunity to clarify and reinforce the roles and boundaries for Prison Offender Managers.

We instruct the NEC, Officers and Officials and Probation Negotiating Committee to ensure that role boundaries are better defined and communicated to other agencies to ensure instructions and requests are role appropriate.

Motion 5 : Disability Support?

This Branch believes that it is unacceptable that disabled members continue to be discriminated against by our employer.

This Branch understands Disabled staff continue to suffer from significant delays in obtaining agreed equipment for reasonable adjustments. This is leading to unfair treatment with some staff being placed into capability procedures due to the delays. PQiP students continue to be suspended from the programme after 6-12 months of undertaking the training when the service has failed to provide identified equipment designed to level the playing field between disabled and non-disabled PQiP students. We believe this is discriminatory practice that NAPO needs to challenge.

We call on NAPO to ensure Reasonable Adjustments and procurement/purchasing procedures are included and given a high priority in the reunification process. We also call for NAPO to push for the uncoupling of HR policies from those of prisons and for HR policies to return to be the remit of Probation and Family Court only.

Motion 6 : The Rocky Road to Recovery: Health & Safety in the COVID Workplace’

This Branch notes: As we start the recovery stage, there is an unseemly rush to open offices, courts and other premises. Building risk assessments are being undertaken by sometimes Inexperienced managers with little or no health and safety knowledge or experience often without consultation with the union reps.

We believe this places staff and client safety at serious risk as necessary protections are being overlooked in the rush to return to ‘normal working’

This Branch views the recovery as an opportunity to clarify and reinforce the roles and boundaries for Napo H&S reps.

We instruct the NEC, Officers and Officials to ensure that H&S issues are clearly defined and communicated to all managers to ensure that legal requirements are always adhered to.

This Branch instructs Napo to work to ensure that staff safety is paramount in formulating the future move forward from the emergency measures and to take immediate action where this is not happening.

Motion 7 : Paperless Office At What Cost?

The current pandemic has seen a rush to remove filing cabinets. Admin staff are scanning remaining paper files into NDelius and discarding the file contents.

Staff have seen handwritten notes from recent interviews and historic information not included in the ‘documents to be scanned list’ discarded and lost.

This information for the most part is irreplaceable. Repeating an interview due to missing notes can cause damage to the OM /client relationship as well as delays to Parole reports and other assessments that can damage professional reputations.

This Branch believes we need to include the case managers in decisions about what is scanned into the electronic case file. Admin staff need better training and guidance in what information needs to be retained. Case managers need to write notes and there must be a way they can retain them safely until such time, as they are incorporated into their work. We feel this situation could escalate with reunification and the amalgamation of different information from different companies and different working practices.

This Branch calls for Probation negotiators to raise this matter at reunification meetings to improve processes for scanning information whilst retaining hand written information in accordance with Data Protection measures.

Co-Chair CRC Napo London Branch AGM 2020

Introduction

Looking back over the last 12 months it would be an understatement to say that a lot has happened, but we should look back a bit - perhaps not as far as the start of TR in 2014 but rather to 2018. Few people seem to discuss this stuff so if you find politics boring simply skip this bit and feel free to read it whenever you have difficulty sleeping.

A bit of history

In April 2018 Napo secured NPS employees a significant pay rise that sent shock waves around the probation world because most CRC owners were not in a position to match it although some, including MTC, said they would if they could afford it but they could not. July 2018 when the then Justice Secretary David Gauke announced that CRC contracts were to end two years early in 2020, greater alignment between CRC and NPS areas and more money to keep services going we knew that TR1 was pretty much at and end not least because no commercial operation can deal with a couple of years hacked off the end of a contract like probation with no prospect of renewal. The complexities of contract culture make that situation unviable. It certainly was not the u turn many had hoped for, but it was perhaps a sign that the tide appeared to be turning. From a CRC perspective plans to work differently and innovatively that were supposed to be up and running earlier were now being rolled out later with the prospect of being abandoned before they had been completely rolled out and tweaked – but things still trundled on requiring huge efforts from CRC staff in London in particular.

Then just as we were getting used to one change then there was another big change. In May 2019 Gauke made a further announcement tearing up what were termed ‘irredeemably flawed’ reforms. It meant some services returning to the public sector but not all. So began the planning for TR2 with all the great effort that that has taken. Most of us thought that that was as far as the government were willing to go and that although probation was not going to be completely unified at least most of the core work would be undertaken by those working in the public sector with a significant number of staff prepared to stay in the private sector and continue to develop services such as Community Payback and Interventions including programmes and resettlement. However, as evidence continued to stack up that Transforming Rehabilitation had produced enormous problems pressure increased on ministers to act.

Most of the irredeemable problems seemed to be as result of the split in services as well as some service providers attempting to provide services despite the fact, they did not have adequate resources to do so. Commercial operations cannot run without some significant profit or at a loss for long as those with vested interests get twitchy. For the CRC owners there just was not any money in it and it was not sustainable. Probation was always run lean. Although there are ways to run operations leaner commercially using technologies etc when you are delivering a quality service that relies heavily on human relationships to bring about desired changes and you need to keep the workforce happy and motivated in order to work with their emotions effectively you cannot also pile on the work relentlessly and pay your staff less than their friends and colleagues doing a very similar job in the public sector – even if they are pseudo civil servants.

None of us truly thought BREXIT would cause the seismic changes that it subsequently did in the political landscape propelling Boris Johnson to power let alone the impact upon our little corner of the criminal justice system. In July 2019, Robert Buckland (former Solicitor General and Minister for Prisons and Probation and an ardent Remainer turned equally ardent Leaver) was appointed Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor by incoming Prime Minister Boris Johnson for his eventual BREXIT loyalty as Johnson set about purging his new administration of any who were still supportive of remaining in the EU leaving himself a reduced pool of talent. Buckland did at least have experience before taking his place as fifth
Justice Secretary in three years and the first barrister to take the role since Ken Clarke (who was shuffled off to the back benches in 2012).

Buckland was therefore in danger of being the first Justice Secretary since Clarke who knew anything much about the criminal justice system and had actually met probation staff when he was a working lawyer. Another significant development was the appointment of South East Cambridgeshire MP Lucy Frazer who transferred from Solicitor General, a role she had taken up in May, to take up Buckland’s former junior minster brief with responsibility for prisons and probation. Fraser has followed Buckland up the greasy pole. Napo were keenly interested in what might transpire with BREXIT dominating the agenda and little expectation of the Ministry of Justice pushing forward much of a policy agenda. Early indications from Buckland were that he was his own man with his own ideas but most thought that unlike his
predecessors including Gauke and Rory Stewart he was not expected to do anything, brave, surprising, or radical.

The surprise came of course in June 2020 when it was announced that probation services in England and Wales would once again return to the public sector as part the NPS. This was a cause for initial celebration for many, who just want to be back working with their friends and colleagues, but also something of a disappointing blow and not an entirely satisfactory outcome for those who were working hard to establish innovative services that would remain in the private sector and also the growing number of people who dread becoming pseudo civil servants rather than local government officers - but again this development was more than was expected. Others lament the expected loss of CRC developed cutting edge software tools such as OMNIA and do not trust the MoJ to come up with anything as good in the near future.

Consultations

Before the announcement last month there have been several consultations that have taken place over the last 12 months including a reorganisation of CP that resulted in no redundancies for members. The resulting new structure was agreed in consultation with the unions and features strong H&S support. The new structure was broadly welcomed by members and the wider CP staff group. An interventions consultation has just restarted after being put on hold due to COVID

Representations

All members who requested representation and were eligible were at a bare minimum provided with advice and support and usually a much higher level of support. The quality of representations remains high and all representations carried out by Napo Reps in London and indeed Napo’s hard-working National Reps have been conducted with the utmost professionalism getting satisfactory outcomes for members in all but a very small number of instances. We have successfully appealed both disciplinary and ill health retirement matters, helped resolve numerous disputes, and negotiated hard for individual members to get settlements they would not otherwise have been awarded.

Representatives

We are short of union representatives on the CRC side and it is not hard to imagine why there are fewer union reps in a private company than in the public sector. However, we do have activists throughout the CRC that are supportive of the union in other ways without necessarily stepping into the spotlight. I am grateful to Christopher Morris for being an excellent Vice Chair and safe pair of hands and who has taken on every representation task with enthusiasm.

Pay Negotiation

We have made relatively little progress on substantive pay mainly because MTC have not been able to match or come sufficiently close to the NPS pay deal – that remains Napo’s benchmark – despite indicating that they would like to do so. Unions have persuaded MTC to improve upon offers made but the 2017-18 pay settlement remains unsettled and the 2019-20 settlement is still being negotiated. We will continue to discuss with employers how they might be in a position to move closer to matching pay with other CRC’s and with the NPS before transition. The departure from Napo of Assistant General Secretary Dean Rogers did impact on pay negotiations as it does take a while to build up a rapport with employers and Dean’s advice was always invaluable but I am grateful to General Secretary Ian Lawrence for picking up the baton and more recently AGS Annoesjka Valent.

Transition

As you would expect we are engaging with the employers regarding Transition. Everyone in Napo wants a satisfactory Transition agreement that will see a smooth and fair transition. It would be an understatement to say that there is lots to consider, lots of unanswered questions, and lots to do and the months ahead are going to need all the experience and negotiating skills Napo has available as the devil is always in the detail and there are lots of contractual and other complexities to sort out and not many of us to do it. We have some good relations with HR and senior leaders, so I am hopeful we can get through this. The good news is that the employers seem to be realising at this stage that they will very much need the unions on board from the outset at every level of the process or they may risk making their own tasks a lot more onerous. We will of course continue to safeguard the interests of all members and meet every challenge head on.

BLM

One of the more positive things to come out of the appalling murder of George Floyd is that the spotlight has been turned on the criminalisation and negatively differential treatment of BAME people in various jurisdictions including England and Wales. There have been several reports including the Lammy Report and the government’s own statistical analysis but the information available and the recommendations of reports have not been acted upon calling into question the seriousness of successive governments in tackling the problems discussed. What is needed therefore is not another report describing the problems but rather a commitment to act. I am happy that Napo and other trade unions are urging the government to act rather than commission yet another report. I am proud that Napo is a diverse and inclusive union that fearlessly stands up for our members who may have experienced prejudice or discrimination.

H&S + COVID19

Napo in both LCRC and TVCRC have been working with employers and UNISON to safeguard probation staff since March. As you know COVID19 presents a range of challenges not least because there are sometimes conflicting messages from official sources. MTCs response to the crisis has generally been well received by staff. Napo have been key in ensuring that the employers planned actions are pre- discussed, thought through, put safety of staff and Service Users (SUs) first, and are constructive in all cases. One of the positive things about MTC is that it has always invested well in health and safety with top quality H&S staff. This is understandable as CP for example traditionally generates most serious incidents. We also have HR staff in the CRC who are responsive towards what is going on both at the coal face and by policy and decision makers. We can also make decisions rather than being directed that makes managing arrangements to deal with a crisis a little easier.

Operations have continued with essential reporting of SUs taking place at hubs where I am told safety arrangements are working reasonably well. CP is now restarting in earnest, and this has been done in a planned careful and considered way with few concerns raised – there is always a human element and also pressures from further up the chain who may never have worked in CP to do things more quickly. The unions have obtained assurances that no one will be required to work in a workplace that has not been risk assessed and signed off as safe enough. Members can be reassured that safety comes first as we gradually return to business as usual but there is a long way to go and no doubt many more meetings to come. As you would expect the CRC being a little more technically advanced and faster paced in IT implementation are using technology to check on staff and track concerns including a tool called AssessNet that we can recommend.

That is all folks

I could probably go on for another thirty pages, but I really need to stop. I would like to thank all those members, who have been active in Napo as you are the union. We are a better union for you being an active part of it whether you are working in probation or retired. Now is the time to be in a union and encourage others to join. Many thanks to the rest of the Napo team in London and to, Katie, Ian, Annoesjka from big Napo and also Bev & Dean who have been good friends to London Branch over the years and who are missed.

David Raho
CRC Co-Chair London Branch
30/07/2020

Co-Chair’s Report (NPS) for Branch AGM 2020

This is my final report to AGM, in my current capacity as London Branch NPS Co-Chair. I am not sure where four years (two terms) have gone but it’s here.

To say this year has been strange, is an understatement. The last time we all met as a Branch was in November 2019. How I long for those good old days!! If you remember, the Brexit debate was in full swing and a General Election was underway. Well I will not comment about the election results, suffice to say, I was completely disappointed.

On reflection, I think my year became gradually worse, when faced with the reality that our wonderful Beverley Cole, was going to retire in January 2020. In addition to this was the warning notice from Terry Wilson, that he too was leaving to work closer to home.

By the end of December 2019, the world’s attention was drawn to China and the presence of the deadly Coronavirus. By January 2020, we all watched in dread, the spread of this virus as it moved around the world, infecting and killing people at an alarming rate.

Our decision to cancel the March Branch Meeting, was not made lightly. However, it was the right decision to focus on the health, safety and welfare of our members. London went into Lockdown a few days later as the Pandemic took hold.

The Branch reps, witnessed heightened anxieties amongst staff at work. The focus turned to our family/friends and keeping ourselves safe. I know some of us lost close work colleagues/family and friends and faced the reality of the impact of the new rules as it applies to funerals. I believe we have all become accustomed to the “new norm” with its terminologies, of ‘quarantine, self-isolation, shielding and social distancing.

The NPS restructured Service Delivery and implemented the Exceptional Delivery Model (EDM). This allowed staff to work from home, following strict guidelines, in terms of undertaking ‘Planned Telephone Contact’ with Service Users, in line with risks/control measures. I think it is fair to say, that this model brought more challenges to the daily work most Probation staff were already doing. Morning meetings on Skype/Teams, spreadsheets galore and the 4.00pm afternoon deadline became our ‘new norm’. It just seems that someone, somewhere in the centre dreamed up how to make us all work harder during this already stressful period.

HMPPS, issued various guidance covering lots of scenarios during the Lockdown period. However, confusion reigned amongst NPS staff when the notification came out about a range of COVID-19, Special Payments which were set up for Prison, Probation and HMPPS frontline staff. This was further complicated by the provision of an excess hours’ scheme which the NPS could access, but never did in London.

After much discussion HMPPS decided to pay all NPS staff members £150 (danger money) once they are on the rota in a Reporting Centre. True to form HMPPS/SSCL are yet to pay the full back dated amount to staff. It is important to note that Napo did not agree to this payment, as we would have preferred it for everyone to receive some recognition for efforts made during this stressful period.

In term of Branch work, this spiralled through the roof, before and during lockdown. All Napo Branch Officers and Reps have done their best to give timely advice and support to members via emails, telephone calls and over, Skype/Microsoft Teams. The one thing I have learned over the last six months, is the number of meetings one can fit into a day and a single week!!

Most of my 50% facilities time was quickly eroded trying to fit everything in. However, help was on hand from Charron, Peter and Richard, in particular on the NPS side. As a Branch Exec group, we have endeavoured to keep in touch via various social media platforms most Monday’s of every week.

Member Representations:

London continues to be a busy Branch. I have lost count of the number of representations that has come to the Branch. We appear to have a constant stream of colleagues, in need of support, and are subject to various formal HR processes. Attendance Management, Disciplinaries, Grievances and Performance Management continue to be the top four.

Over the past year we have seen an increase in Disciplinary cases from the ‘Early Look’ case review process after a Serious Further Offence. Please be warned that there is no easing of this process on the horizon and NAPO membership has never been more important than it is today. I do believe this Branch prides itself with the high quality of support/advice and representation to members across all staff grades.

Probation Reform – Reunification

The 11th of June 2020 will undoubtedly be a date to remember in Napo’s history. This was the day, the Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland MP formally announced that all Probation Services will be brought back into public ownership, including Unpaid Work and programmes. This was a complete U turn in government policy, and a “we told you so” bitter/sweet victory for Napo.

I know that some CRC colleagues, are not elated or jumping for joy, in terms of joining NPS. However, the one thing to admire is the way this union fought the Government and was literally the lone TU voice in the campaign against Transforming Rehabilitation (TR). The Great Mistake!! All that wasted money which could have been invested into back into the Service and Criminal Justice partnership agencies. I know the fight is not over yet, with more work to come to get the NPS out of the Civil Service and back into the public sector where it belongs.

Probation NPS Pay Award

It was really disheartening to learn in April 2020, that the NPS would not be able to pay the 2020 increment as promised in the 2018 pay modernisation award. In my view Probation always appears to be at the back of the queue, when it comes to our employers paying us what we deserve and on time. This has caused further misery to staff and has served to decrease staff morale. National Napo will continue to raise our pay concerns at the highest levels and we hope the matter is remedied sooner rather than later. They really need to get it right before the Probation Reform programme is completed.

National AGM 2019

National AGM 2019 was in Cardiff in Wales. Whilst we had booked forty rooms at the Travelodge Hotel in Queen Street, 38 members attended and each year I say with pride that we were the largest represented Branch at National AGM and indeed the most active. All London Branch Motions were carried and have become part of NAPO policy 2019/20. I have always gained a sense of pride to see our London members taking an active role by either contributing to the debates or moving motions.

However, it is all change this year. Due to COVID-19, AGM will not take place at Eastbourne in October 2020. The event will be a virtual event, so this will be interesting. I have now cancelled London Branch room booking with the Cavendish Hotel in Eastbourne.

NPS Joint Consultative Committee JCC

I have attended all the scheduled JCC meetings with Charron. Most of these meetings are now held on Teams and became a weekly occurrence during the first two/three months of lockdown.

We have continued to make strong representations on a range of issues regarding practice and workplace employee matters. Over the past four years, I have seen an improvement in the way we engage with the NPS. This Branch also has a good working relationship with our Director Kilvinder Vigurs and her Senior Leadership Team. Whilst it did not happen overnight, steadfast dedication, hard work, commitment and energy has helped to get us to where we are today.

We currently have a Senior Leadership Team that will listen to our concerns when they are formally raised within this forum. I have seen numerous changes in organisational practice, for example more completions of stress risk assessments (SRA), regular RAAP’s/Work place Passport reviews. All London LDU’s are tasked with collating monthly data, re: sickness, grievances, conduct and disciplinaries, so potential unintended trends in inequalities or potential discrimination can be quickly addressed.

In between the JCC meetings London Branch has been invited to participate in several NPS London All Staff Teleconference, which has been another way of raising the visibility/awareness of London Napo Branch and our activities. I have also taken part in an All London NPS BAME staff Teams event, as part of the organisational response to the Black Lives Matter movement. I was recently elected to the post of National Black NEC Rep in earlier this month. I have also contributed to the NPS Wellbeing Magazine, which is available to all NPS staff.

First Tier Trade Union and Management Meetings

It is now two years since NPS Director Kilvinder Vigurs devised a new structure of TU engagement across London with the aim of promoting TU engagement across the London Clusters. She also wanted to embed the practice of TU engagement with her Senior Management Team. These First Tier Meetings gives each respected HoS, the chance to Chair and resolve local employee related issues before the matter is escalated to the main JCC. We still want to encourage more members to become workplace reps to assist us in representing the two Cluster areas groups in London.

Lastly, I wish to congratulate and welcome the incoming NPS Co-Chair Charron Culnane. We have been together for a decade in the Branch and I dare say, we will be together for a few more years to come.

Unity is strength

Patricia Johnson
Branch Co-Chair NPS
30/07/2020

Annual Report - Vice Chair NPS

To say it has been a strange year is an understatement. Our Branch AGM last year was held in a real meeting place, with members able to attend in person with drinks and socialising afterwards. We are starting the new Branch year with a virtual Branch AGM via Zoom and for many of us this is the ‘new normal’.

The main challenge facing us last year was reunification. The challenges facing us now are how we safeguard the lives of all of our members and service users and meet their individual needs during the COVID-19 situation as we progress from lockdown to getting offices re open and staffed again as well as dealing with the reunification process.

The last physical Branch meeting we held was November 22nd 2019, at Mitre House. Understandably we had to cancel the proposed meetings in March and May due to the restrictions placed on public gatherings by COVID-19.

Pay:

As far as I am aware at the time of writing this report there is no news regarding the outstanding NPS pay award. I understand National NAPO are in ongoing negotiations. Emergency payments during Emergency Delivery Measures (EDM) are just for NPS staff who are front facing. This has caused some ill feeling within NPS with those forced to homework who feel undervalued. Our CRC colleagues are also feeling left out. These differences need to be addressed in future as they can lead to discord at a time we need to be unified. The proposed overtime agreements seem a little more inclusive for NPS staff but there was a very short response time that may have led to many not feeling able to participate.

Representations:

Most of my work this year has been supporting members with advice or representations. Initially we used to do the occasional rep meeting via telephone usually when we had been made aware of a meeting at the last minute. Since lockdown all of our representation work has been done over Skype or Teams. This has brought new challenges but seems to be working well in most cases. Usually when I visit an office for a rep case I tend to do a walkabout, introduce myself and NAPO and leave handouts as a means of profile raising. As we are now virtual we can’t do this and are having to find other means of getting NAPO awareness out there and ensure we continue to maintain visibility.

JCC:

Patricia and I have been attending meetings, via Teams, with senior management and our sister Unions on an almost weekly basis during the COVID -19 emergency giving us the platform to discuss safety concerns around new working patterns as well as support and wellbeing for all of the homeworkers and office rota workers delivering EDM. The meetings around reunification have understandably taken a back seat but are now resuming along with regular JCC’s. We have raised many issues brought to us by our members including home working, shielding, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on BAME staff and problems with individual and workplace risk assessments.

Inductions:

Patricia and I were attending and speaking at corporate inductions in person. By the time of the Branch AGM we will have delivered our 1st virtual induction to PQUIPs. This is a vital means of raising our profile and recruiting new members.

Homeworking:

Most people are working from home now and those attending offices are only there one or two days a week at the moment. We have adapted but issues have arisen that now need new guidance and policies as a response. We have noted there is a world of difference between those who voluntarily work from home and those who have been forced to by the current situation. Some of our members have home environments that are not conducive to home working, and this needs to be acknowledged and supported by our respective Organisations. We have also noticed there is an assumption that if you are working from home you are available for Skype calls/ meetings etc at any time and members have felt pressured to work longer hours in order to justify, what they are doing.

Women:

I attended the Women In NAPO online conference via Zoom on May 20th 2020. This was a well-attended event. It was my 1st experience of a Zoom meeting with more than 10 participants and it was an eye- opening experience. I was very impressed by how well run it was and how smoothly the event was managed. It gives me confidence for our Branch AGM and the National AGM both being held this year on virtual platforms. I look forward to supporting the excellent work our Women’s Staff Liaison Officer. Sharon Brereton, is undertaking regarding raising awareness of the impact of the menopause on working women and the organisation. She has written an excellent article included in this Annual Report.

Black Lives Matter:

My report would not be complete without mentioning the Black Lives Matter campaign. All lives should matter equally. At the moment we are seeing clear evidence we are nowhere near attaining equality and Black lives need more support from everyone. NAPO has long recognised there are issues across all of the areas we cover.

Service Users are disproportionately from BAME backgrounds. Recall figures also demonstrate we are more likely to recall BAME service users. TACT measures are also disproportionate towards BAME clients especially the new measures put in as a response to the most recent London Bridge attack. Our organisational policies stem from a position of white privilege as does our law. The Union constitution is also one written from this viewpoint. NAPO is working with the NAPO Black Network to look at how we can recognise and remove any inherent racism in our system. NPS London already monitors the ethnicity of staff involved in organisational processes, there is work ongoing about SPDR’s and whether they discriminate against our BAME staff. There is also work ongoing about the impact of COVID -19 on staff from Black and Asian backgrounds in particular and how we can best protect and manage them during the ‘recovery’ period. The Unions are involved in all of this work and will continue to raise issues affecting our Black, Asian and other Ethnic Minority members. We are still at the ‘committee’ stage for a lot of this work and understandably many of our Black members are telling us we should be seeing action plans now not just talk. I want to thank Beverley Smith our Black Staff Liaison Rep for all her help and sage advice. I have a feeling we will be working very closely over the coming year.

National AGM:

I sit on National Steering Committee whose role it is to arrange business at AGM. This includes checking motions, allocating them to various committees or networks, compositing and arranging orders of business as we as overseeing Stewarding arrangements, ballots, emergency motions and constitutional advice for the AGM Chairs as well as timing and recording proceedings. This year is going to be a brand new challenge as we hold the 1st virtual AGM via a host platform. All of our Steering meetings have been via Zoom this year and we have got used to working in this way very quickly. Not bad considering the average age of Steering is 60+ If we can get used to new tech anyone can.

Farewells:

We have had to say farewell to several people who have passed away from COVID related issues this year from NPS and CRC’s across AP’s Court, Offender Management and the Prison Service. We have also lost friends and colleagues to non COVID causes whose loss we cannot mourn due to COVID restrictions. I will not name names but they will all be deeply missed and our thoughts are with their families at this exceptionally difficult time. One of the things NAPO has requested is when we do get back to ‘normal’ a memorial service is held to honour and celebrate all of those we have lost during this time.

Charron Culnane
NPS Vice Chair
20/07/2020

NPS Health & Safety Convenor Report for London Napo AGM 2020

This year has become all about COVID-19, the management response to it and trying to make sure that all members are being treated fairly and are safe, whether they are working at home or in the office. I have been working from home since the end of March and have been involved in H&S issues at the highest level within London NPS. All in all, I believe that we have managed to get the best possible outcomes for staff in terms of safety and preserving health across the region. Thankfully, the number of Covid-related casualties has been relatively low but we continue to be vigilant as the English government recklessly pursues policies which appear to be based on economic rather than public health reasons. Napo and Unison are both involved in policy and decision making ensuring that staff are best looked after. We are hoping to get more members involved in Covid based H&S work over the coming weeks.

In the longer term, it appears that there may be a shift towards more home working for staff and I have been pleasantly surprised that the NPS has been providing staff with all the equipment necessary for safer home working over the past few months. That said, I realise that people are finding home working difficult. Lack of space, lack of real contact with colleagues and the high levels of work are causing a great deal of stress and potential mental health problems to individuals and we are trying to stress the prevalence of this to management. The continued obsession with unrealistic targets throughout the pandemic is a great cause of stress and anxiety to many and this coupled with worry and anxiety about the virus has been taking its toll on staff. There are also many people who have not yet received the equipment they need for safe home working for a variety of reasons and this has resulted in a great many people suffering from musculo-skeletal problems. It is really important that everybody completes the Accident & Incident forms whenever they have problems as otherwise it is impossible to know the real extent of the problem and be able to raise it with management. One of the issues which has been raised is the disparity across the LDUs in terms of the management response to the EDM arrangements and staff wellbeing. These problems are now at the highest management level and we continue to hope that all managers will work to the policies rather than behave in a ‘maverick’ fashion, often to the detriment of their staff.

Prior to the pandemic, inspection of offices across London continued and the probation estate was generally in a sorry state. It does not appear to be getting any better although several offices have been closed, at least to NPS staff. However, some of those acting as hubs have been a concern with some offices having to be deep cleaned on more than one occasion since the EDM came into being. Conditions for staff continue to be unacceptable with some offices in serious states of disrepair. Heating and ventilation problems, rodent and insect infestations and just plain dirtiness still prevail unfortunately.

Overall, we still need at least another H&S rep in London as the volume of work is too much for one rep. There are currently negotiations with management regarding the need for Covid specific reps and the need for facility time.

As previously mentioned, workplace stress continues to be a major issue as does the issue of back problems being experienced by staff carrying around computers and performing ‘agile’ working. It is of great importance that members fill in Accident and Incident forms for all incidents and injuries including stress. I repeat from last year’s report that Kilvinder Vigers has said that the NPS has a duty of care to all employees wherever they are working whether the place is an NPS building or not; this includes staff homes now that many of us are actually working from our homes due to shielding etc.

The putting together of the CRC and NPS is going to be a huge exercise with regard to health & safety and one which does appear to have been acknowledged by senior management. The changes will also have an impact on the organisation of the Napo branch which, in terms of H&S and all other areas, will take into account the new structures.

I’d like to thank Ian Lander from the NPS for his swift response to requests and other issues throughout the year and particularly with regard to the Covid-19 issues. Also a big thanks to the other branch officers for their support and patience with me as I finally get to grips with remote meeting platforms such as Zoom and Skype. All these virtual meetings are fine but I really look forward to the time when I can meet you all in reality!! Even if we do have to socially distanced!!

I’d also like to thank the growing number of members who are contacting me regarding breaches of health & safety, as without them, many issues would be unknown, particularly at the moment when it is not possible for me to actually visit the offices.

Let’s hope the next year is less stressful and anxious than this one

Peter Halsall,
NPS H&S Convenor London Branch
Date: 30/06/2020

NAPO London Branch AR/ERO Annual Report

This is my first full year in post and it has certainly been a potentially progressive year. For society to require the death of a man for it to seem to start listening to the Black Lives Matter protests is a travesty and one many of us have seen gain momentum in previous decades to fade away with little progress being made. However, this feels different and I sincerely hope momentum can be maintained to make serious and long term sustainable change.

The COVID-19 crisis has added to the debate regarding disadvantage caused through links to protective characteristics and the undeniable data linking Black Asian and Minority Ethnic staff to an increased mortality rate need to be continually debated as to why. The argument linking disadvantages associated with protective characteristics to poverty, limited opportunities, crowded accommodation, multi-generational families living together as well as many other issues all relate to increased risk to COVID-19. To be a fully inclusive company lessons have to be learnt regarding all the disadvantages faced by people with protected characteristics so that plans can be put into place to make a move towards a more representative work force. There are ongoing issues that need to be resolved related to Black Asian and Minority Ethnic staff and staff with disabilities being disproportionately represented in staff receiving a ‘needs improvement’ grading in SPDR’s. This is an area that needs to be continuously discussed with senior management about what will be put into place to learn lessons and address this problem to understand why this is the situation. This will be an ongoing issue for me over the next twelve months.

There is an increasing amount of attention being paid by our employer to the wellbeing of us as employees, I’m pleased to say I have input into the monthly Wellbeing Core Groups and will be making clear points about how unfair treatment of employees with protected characteristics is a clear link to deteriorating emotional wellbeing with our members. It is unacceptable that members wait 6, 12 and sometimes 18 months for equipment for Reasonable Adjustments to be in place. It is further unacceptable that members are put on Performance Improvement Plans when Reasonable Adjustments are not in place or the Service has failed to purchase equipment to address disadvantage. This will be a focus of my work in the coming year and I intend to take a collective (anonymous) list of examples of this poor treatment of members with disabilities to the attention of Senior Managers to ensure that as a Service we are compliant with the Equality Act 2010. We cannot fulfil the MOJ’s desire to achieve Equality Accreditation if this practise continues. I hope I have your support to bring such examples to my attention at the earliest opportunity because if we address these issues early they are easier to resolve.

The branch has also paid for me to attend the National Discrimination Law Conference in January 2020. This was a fascinating opportunity which has provided me with a wealth of information related to legal precedents of discrimination cases lost by employers at Employment Tribunals to show the Service that their decisions are putting them in a vulnerable position. This has been a very effective way of making change happen.

Thank you for your time in reading this report and your ongoing support to make Probation an inclusive and supportive employer as we all deserve.

How about this, it is a bit of a political rant but it says exactly what I expect to be tackling in the coming twelve months.

Richard Clark
Disability Advocacy and Wellbeing Network (DAWN)
Area Lead for Probation: London
Date: 09/07/2020

Latest From Napo 215

Here we have the latest mailout from Napo today, complete with yet another set of bloody letters - RRMP - from the command and control HMPPS:-

NPS Pay Talks Resume

Welcome news reached us this week during the NPS Joint National Committee, that discussions on Pay are to resume in the near future. Dialogue between HMPPS and the Treasury has taken place to discuss the pay remit and we expect to receive a formal invitation to meet with the NPS Pay and Reward team soon.

The delay in the payment of pay progression due in April and the failure by the employer to properly resource the competency based framework project (see below) has been a considerable source of anger for our members.

What’s been going on?

The pay year in the NPS runs from April to March in line with the financial year. The 2018 pay deal agreed by members, was for two years, 2018/19 and 2019/20 so members received payment for the second year of this in April 2019. READ IN FULL - or read below.

OMiC Update

Our regular meetings with members of the OMiC Board have resumed now that we are working towards recovery and some of the staff who were seconded out of the OMiC project will be returning to it. A final draft of the OMiC recovery EDM will be shared shortly for our final opportunity to consult on it but this week’s meeting was a useful opportunity to raise some of the issues that have really been highlighted by the Covid-19 crisis.

SPO line management arrangements

While the move to formal line management of prison SPOs by the Governor has not yet happened informal management arrangements most certainly are in place and there have been examples of tensions between the NPS approach to exceptional delivery and the prison service approach placing prison SPOs in an almost impossible situation. We have supported manager members to address these issues and in some cases escalated them to ensure that SPOs have the right level of support from their division in implementing the EDM and the NPS guidance on social distancing, hygiene and PPE that underpins the protection of health and safety during the crisis. We have insisted that these issues be taken into consideration as we resume discussions about the line management of the prison SPOs. For now issues should be raised locally via the divisional implementation board and if necessary referred to Katie Lomas.

The approach to recovery

Once the EDM is published each prison will develop a regime recovery management plan (RRMP) and local reps, both Napo and POA must be involved in consultation on this along with the associated Health and Safety risk assessments for the OMU and related activities. As reported earlier in the week Napo and the POA have agreed to work collaboratively on this and where there is no Napo H&S rep in the prison local branch reps will be able to liaise with the POA H&S rep and members working in the establishment.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

What’s been going on?

The pay year in the NPS runs from April to March in line with the financial year. The 2018 pay deal agreed by members, was for two years, 2018/19 and 2019/20 so members received payment for the second year of this in April 2019.

The pay deal included the commitment to developing a competency based framework (CBF) for pay progression to use from 2020/21 onwards. Our position has always been that the scheme needed to be agreed in time for it to be in place for a full 12 months before it was used to determine progression. So to determine progression in April 2020 it needed to have been in place by the end of March 2019. When it was clear that this would not happen we secured a further agreement from the employer that progression in April 2020 for the year 2020/21 would be automatic. When it then became clear that the CBF scheme would not be in place by March 2020 we secured a further agreement for automatic progression for 2021/22. These agreements stand.

In March this year, the employer explained to us that because the pay progression due in April 2020 had not been agreed by HM Treasury they would not be able to pay it on time and would have to wait until they were authorised to enter talks with the trades unions on any pay award for 2020/21.

All Government departments have to go through proper process in terms of pay. First they get the 'advice' from HM Treasury which is based on Government directives about public sector pay. This usually comes in the early part of the year. Then the departments submit a proposal to HM Treasury and then they begin negotiations with the Unions. Once we, as a union, get to a point where we have achieved as much as we feel possible by negotiations we put the offer to members in a ballot. If the offer is agreed the pay award is made. This negotiation is a completely separate process to pay progression.

Next steps

This year the process has been delayed because there was a General Election in December 2019 which meant that HM Treasury were later than usual in issuing their advice. We know that the advice has been issued to the employers in the last few weeks so we expect to start negotiations on the pay award very soon. The Trade Unions in any case submitted our pay claim in March 2020 so that the employers were aware of our position. You can see the claim on our website here https://www.napo.org.uk/nps-pay-claim-20202021 which also neatly summarises the position in relation to pay progression. This pay claim was developed in consultation and approved by Napo's Probation Negotiating Committee (PNC) who report to every NEC meeting which means that the reps on PNC and NEC will have been involved in the conversations about it. The pay claim was, as is customary, sent out to members and placed on the website for reference.

We have written to members in mailouts at the end of 2019 and in March and May 2020 to update you on the pay position which essentially is that the progression through pay scales will be automatic for 2020/21 and 2021/22 but that for this year progression will not be paid until the pay award negotiations have been settled. Once we resume pay negotiations we will let members know and will report progress, initially this will be in confidence to the Napo PNC. Once we have negotiated as much of our as possible, the offer will be put to members.