Probation Worries For Voluntary Sector

The official government-funded cheerleader for the criminal justice voluntary sector is Clinks and they also gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee last week. Their somewhat scarily-named 'Director of Influence' writes on the Clinks website:-

Probation reform - the view from the voluntary sector   

Today I will be giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into the future of the probation service. Clinks has already submitted written evidence to the committee which you can read here. This is based on feedback from a wide range of organisations across the voluntary sector and raises many of the issues highlighted in my last blog including the voluntary sector’s concerns on the complexity of the commissioning, the need for costly IT infrastructure and for credit reports not suited to illustrating the financial health of voluntary sector organisations. In my last blog I also highlighted ongoing questions around the contract values and the predicted number of services users these are based upon.

As transition towards the new model progresses and now that we are half way through the competition process for the commissioning of services to be up and running alongside the National Probation Service (NPS) from day one of the new model (Education Training and Employment (ETE), Accommodation, Personal Wellbeing and Women’s Centred Services), I will be reflecting to the Justice Committee Clinks’ views on whether the model offers sufficient opportunity for voluntary sector organisations.

Is there sufficient resource and opportunity for the voluntary sector?

Overall HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is investing a significant amount of money, probably more than ever before, in the kinds of services that our sector has the expertise and experience in providing. By year three and four of the new model onwards it is forecast that £120m will be spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services.

Although the total overall investment that will be made in future years is sizeable, not all services that can be commissioned through the Dynamic Framework in the future are being commissioned to be in operation from day one of the new model. This means that in the early months the amount spent on commissioned services will be considerably less and there are only opportunities for some parts of the voluntary sector.

That said the investment in year one is still greater than Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) data indicates is currently spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services. However, the contract values also need to cover more than just service delivery with substantial requirements around having offices in certain locations where services can be based, IT infrastructure and also the need to be able to cover future pension liabilities for staff transferring from CRCs.

Organisations are feeding back to us that for the competitions that have gone live so far, these requirements mean they are having to shave service delivery to the bone, have limited ability to involve the range of partners they would like and are sometimes struggling to make contracts break even.

We have also heard that as a result of this, some larger providers including private primes, are looking to the multi service contracts of personal wellbeing and women’s services as more likely to represent opportunities for economies of scale. This could have a negative impact on the ability of small specialist organisations to compete for these contracts.

Cancellation of Probation Delivery Partner contracts

The cancellation of the Probation Delivery Partner Contracts for the delivery of unpaid work and accredited programmes raised some concerns in the sector that less investment would flow to charities. In reality, the cancellation of these contracts makes little difference to the majority of the small and specialist organisations in the voluntary sector who would have been unable to bid for contracts of that size. Some have questioned how the funds for those contracts will now be spent - but HMPPS is clear that these will now be utilised in service delivery by the NPS and that there was little additional resource for contract management.

One potential implication of this, is that the larger organisations who had seen an opportunity in these contracts are now more likely to be competing with small and specialist organisations for the opportunities presented by the Dynamic Framework.

Is the sector able to engage with the commissioning process?

The issues regarding the complexity of the commissioning process raised in my previous blog remain, and present a significant challenge to the sector. At the end of August over 370 organisations had registered interest in the Dynamic Framework. Over 150 organisations had completed Selection Questionnaires (the supplier qualification form) and at least 60% of those were voluntary organisations. Over 70 of those 150 had already qualified onto the Dynamic Framework. These numbers represent a small proportion of the 1700 organisations estimated to be in the sector, two thirds of which work with people under probation supervision.

As with everything, the complexity of the commissioning has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has meant that both the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the voluntary sector are engaging in a complex commissioning process with reduced resources and in a reduced period of time.

At the first meeting of the Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3) Probation Special Interest Group, members recommended that for the sector to engage in commissioning at this time all information should be clearly available at the beginning of any call off. However, this has not been the case and voluntary sector organisations are having to individually ask huge numbers of clarification questions. At Clinks we find ourselves not just influencing on overarching policy issues but having to understand and question significant details of the contracts.

Do the proposed services meet need?

Covid-19 has also reduced HMPPS and MoJ resources in such a way that they had to take the decision to commission less services for day one, leaving out Alcohol and Dependency and Finance, Benefit and Debt. For the remaining day one services the competition was restructured to commission Accommodation and ETE across regional probation areas rather than Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) areas. This has further reduced the day one opportunities for the sector overall and as the Accommodation and ETE contracts are larger, there is less scope for the involvement of smaller organisations with more local footprints or delivering specialist services to certain cohorts. These organisations can now only get involved in the delivery of these contracts through partnerships and sub-contracting.

As well as commissioning a more limited set of services for day one, the service specifications in each of the categories are different to that which are currently commissioned by CRCs. There are substantial changes to the Through the Gate model which means that the sector will likely be delivering a more limited amount of pre-release support. This has raised concerns that the learning and benefits of the current Enhanced Through the Gate model which allow for collaboration and closer working between the voluntary sector, CRCs and prisons will be lost.

There is also an assumption inherent in the commissioning model that services will take a while to ramp up and as such the number of service users would be lower in the first couple of years than in later years. Given the needs the voluntary sector knows to exist amongst people under probation supervision, this does not make sense. In part as a result of Clinks and RR3 influencing, these issues have been addressed in the accommodation contract.

We are also engaged in ongoing discussions to understand the contract values for women’s services. As multi service contracts there is added complexity in ensuring it is costed appropriately given that an individual woman may have multiple co-occuring needs that the service will be required to address.

Raising our concerns with HMPPS

We have raised these issues with Amy Rees, Director General of Probation at HMPPS and the probation reform team have engaged positively with us in trying to mitigate these issues. We are currently exploring with them options for providing support to organisations around the IT requirements of the contracts and we hope that we might see the remaining call offs address some of our other concerns.

We hope that this will mean that the forthcoming competition for personal wellbeing and women’s services will avoid some of the challenges around contract value that we have seen with accommodation and ETE, however we are concerned that the questions around estates, and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) liabilities will remain. In addition, the challenges around the complexity and structure of the commissioning model are to a large extent challenges with the cross-government procurement model than with policy choices made by the probation reform team.

Conclusion

We continue to be concerned that despite the increased investment in rehabilitation and resettlement services presented by the new model, the contracts for day one services do not provide significant enough opportunity for the voluntary sector. Where the voluntary sector is successful in the procurements, they may find themselves subsiding contracts in order to deliver quality of service, just as our research found is the case with current Transforming Rehabilitation contracts. We may also have to wait some time before Regional Probation Directors feel the NPS is sufficiently established to turn their attention to commissioning services for day two and beyond. All this threatens the sustainability of the criminal justice voluntary sector and is brought into sharper focus when we consider the impact of Covid-19.

Clinks wholeheartedly believes, that the probation service needs the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector to achieve improved outcomes for the people under its supervision and the communities they live in. For this reason I’ll be raising these issues in my evidence to the Justice Committee this afternoon and we will continue to highlight our concerns with the probation reform team as well as HMPPS, MoJ and the government more widely so that the voluntary sector is able to continue to work alongside probation and across the wider criminal justice system.

Jessica Mullen

Director of Influence and Communications 

Latest On TOM

HMPPS have just published an update to the Draft Target Operating Model for probation services in England and Wales and as you peruse the following highlights, have in mind the following observation from the Prison Reform Trust:-

"The role of central government in probation in recent years has been entirely destructive. Whether that continues to be the case will depend on whether the ministry has the humility and good sense to devolve power to a local level. That rarely comes naturally to central governments of any persuasion. It’s too early to tell how this one will behave.”

3. Further detail on changes 

NPS delivery of Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structures Interventions 

3.1. Under our revised approach to probation reform, Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions will no longer be contracted out to Probation Delivery Partners but will instead be delivered by the NPS directly. We consider that bringing these services into the NPS will put us in the best possible position to respond to any further disruption caused by COVID-19 and enable a smoother recovery out of exceptional delivery arrangements we have had to put in place. These services have been delivered by probation services in the past and as such, we have confidence in our ability to deliver these again. 

3.2. Our approach for all these services for Day 1 will be to move existing CRC staff and delivery models into the NPS with the minimum disruption with ongoing work thereafter to embed and improve service delivery. The transition to a level of service as envisaged by the draft Target Operating Model is likely to take time given the backlogs to Unpaid Work and Accredited Programme created by exceptional delivery arrangements as well as a likely spike in court orders once jury trials resume. This would be the case regardless of which organisation delivery sat with but we consider that bringing this work in-house gives us greater flexibility to deal with this. 

Unpaid Work 

3.3. The design intentions for Unpaid Work are primarily to address the issues with current delivery and to improve quality and sentencer confidence. Effective Unpaid Work placements are crucial in contributing to the Government’s manifesto commitment to toughen community sentences. 

3.4. We plan to achieve this through a focus on the following areas: 

• Quality of assessments; 
• Interface with Sentence Management; 
• Sufficient quality placements with increased focus on education, training and employment (ETE); 
• Local engagement and delivery; 
• Effective administration and recording.

3.5. As detailed in the draft Target Operating Model, the current requirement to commence work within 7 business days does not provide sufficient time to assess and place appropriately and allowing 10 business days for the completion of the Unpaid Work assessment form will enable a full risk and needs assessment. We had envisaged that this would then be shared with the Probation Delivery Partner to match to an appropriate placement and that within 10 days, the Probation Delivery Partner would deliver a full Unpaid Work induction and instruction to attend a first work session. 

3.6. As the revised model removes the interface between the NPS and Unpaid Work, it provides a new benefit for single requirement orders compared to the previous model as these can continue to be managed by Unpaid Work teams. This will facilitate efficient delivery of orders primarily focussed on ensuring Unpaid Work hours are completed and the removal of the interface will speed up the process, enabling the starts timescale to be reduced from 20 to 15 business days. The Unpaid Work assessment form completed by the Probation Practitioner will be incorporated into OASys and so there is no proposed change to the completion of this. 

3.7. It remains a priority to increase the level and scope of work placements available to meet the requirements of the Court. Female service users will be offered a choice not to be placed in all male work environments and appropriate placements will be sought in the local community to meet diverse needs. Sufficient placements and some flexibility alongside other strategies will avoid short notice cancellation of work placements. It will be the responsibility of the Unpaid Work team to review all active cases at the 6 and 9-month stages of the Unpaid Work requirement to ensure all hours are completed within the 12-month period prescribed by the Court and to flag with Probation Practitioners where appropriate action is needed. 

3.8. Whilst the main pathway to address ETE needs remains with the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement as a specific element of the sentence, considerable potential remains within the Unpaid Work requirement for on the job training and skills development that can support future employment opportunities. A feature that defines a ‘good quality’ placement is one that can utilise the 20% allowance for ETE activities for those eligible and as outlined in the draft Target Operating Model we plan a renewed focus on placements providing ETE. Under the revised model we intend to review ETE provision that CRCs have in place currently and how we might continue effective arrangements as well as seeking additional opportunities to secure improved ETE. 

3.9. We will retain our commitment to limit travel time to Unpaid Work placements to a maximum of 90 minutes each way, of which a maximum of 60 minutes each way can be spent under supervision and credited against the sentence of the Court. CRCs are not always achieving this currently so further investment will be required in Placement Coordinators to source placements locally, undertaking local engagement and ensuring sufficient transport solutions. There are currently systems in place so that local people and community organisations can identify work projects for Unpaid Work teams to complete and these will need to be strengthened under the revised model, requiring Unpaid Work teams to actively seek the views of local people and organisations when adopting new Unpaid Work projects.

3.10. We recognise that we will also need to review logistics of Unpaid Work delivery including consideration of CRC estates and assets that we might need to meet locality requirements and how we capture relevant data on placements and scheduling from CRC systems and record this going forward. We will also need to consider how we manage administrative support for which there is not a uniform model under CRC contracts. 

Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions 

3.11. Accredited Programmes are the intervention of choice for HMPPS, as they are supported by a robust evidence base. The NPS currently deliver specific Accredited Programmes (e.g. for sex offenders) which will ease the transfer of other Accredited Programmes to the NPS as there is already expertise in this area and we anticipate that there will be eligible staff for transfer with similar expertise. By bringing these under a single organisation we will also benefit from synergies in delivery of these programmes. 

3.12. Eligibility and suitability checks will continue to be undertaken by the NPS to ensure those meeting the criteria get the opportunity to attend an Accredited Programme. Delivery of the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP) and Building Better Relationships (BBR) Programme in all regions can be achieved by the NPS. In the short term other Accredited Programmes addressing needs such as Resolve and Building Skills for Recovery which are currently being delivered in some locations can continue, subject to review of the delivery suite by the Regional Probation Director to ensure local needs are met. Design intentions to meet equality requirements and timely completions can also be met through our revised approach and will be supported by the recently approved flexible delivery model, which allows for remote and one to one delivery to meet specific needs. 

3.13. We stated in the draft Target Operating Model that the maximum time that an individual would be expected to travel to attend an Accredited Programme or Structured Intervention would be 90 minutes each way. To achieve this under the revised model we will need to secure suitable local accommodation that meets Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel requirements. 

3.14. Further scoping of the CRC and NPS estates is required to understand whether this can be met through existing provisions as well as a review of those arrangements put in place by CRCs that will need to continue (e.g. providing drivers to transport individuals to interventions because of public transport challenges). As with Unpaid Work, we will also need to ensure we have appropriate systems and processes in place to provide a record of the delivery of interventions which can be quality assured. 

Staff transfers and regional structures 

3.15. - 3.16. We expect that CRC staff who deliver Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Rehabilitation Activity Requirements in the three need areas which will become Structured Interventions will be assigned to transfer to the NPS, which will mean many more staff coming into the NPS than under the previous model. There will be some staff in mixed roles which are part Sentence Management and part interventions where decisions on role allocation will need to be made.

3.17. To oversee and deliver this work we will need to have dedicated teams within the regional structure. Further work is required to determine roles and structures within these but we anticipate that there will be a new regional senior leadership role to oversee teams focused on Unpaid Work and Interventions. For Unpaid Work, we will need to consider arrangements for delivery of ETE and peer mentors, which in some instances may be sub-contracted under current CRC contracts. Similarly, for the delivery of the BBR programme, we will need to consider arrangements for the Partner Link Worker role which some CRCs currently sub-contract. Revised approach to Dynamic Framework 

3.18. To support preparation of procurement activity, our development of the Dynamic Framework design had progressed since publication of the draft Target Operating Model. Under the previous model we had planned to let over 200 contracts at PCC level for rehabilitation and resettlement support for Day 1 in the following need areas: 

• Accommodation; 
• Education, Training & Employment and Finance, Benefits & Debt; 
• Dependency and recovery; 
• Personal wellbeing; 
• Women’s services; 
• Services for young adults in Wales. 

3.19. Delivery expertise of much rehabilitation and resettlement support sits in the market as these services have not routinely been delivered by probation in the past. We consider that the Dynamic Framework continues to be the most appropriate mechanism to secure this. This is because it establishes the foundation for future procurement of these services locally and enables delivery of specific and consistent requirements. 

3.20. We recognise though that the impact of COVID-19 on many organisations’ ability to bid along with our own internal capacity to run the competitions, evaluate them and support mobilisation means that we need to revise the scope of what we can procure via the Dynamic Framework for June 2021. 

3.21. - 3.22. To balance the need to reduce the complexity of our initial call-off plans with ensuring sufficient specialist services are still in place for Day 1, we have revisited whether alternatives are available in the short-term to avoid the need for call-off competitions across some categories of need for Day 1. For instance, for some of the original intended Day 1 scope, there are existing alternative sources of provision that Regional Probation Directors are better linked into, and can commission or co-commission directly. 

3.23. Our decision on what to continue to procure for Day 1 has been informed by the following considerations: 

• Where statutory or alternative provision is weakest; 
• Ease of delivery in-house (including opportunity for co-commissioning by regional teams, staff skill-set and physical delivery capability – e.g. whether premises are required); 
• Current usage – both levels and how it is delivered; 
• Extent of need (e.g. is there a specific pre-release resettlement requirement as well as post-release rehabilitative need). 

3.24. For Day 1 we have also considered where it might be appropriate to procure services at a regional level rather than at a PCC level, thereby reducing the number of lots and making delivery for June 2021 more viable. A regional approach does not preclude local delivery. We intend to discuss with Regional Probation Directors the geographical footprint required in their regions for effective service delivery and how we can facilitate this (e.g. co-location with probation offices), as well as considering locality and responsiveness of services in our evaluation of bids. 

3.25. We will open qualification for all categories of need under the Dynamic Framework, even if some are no longer in scope for our initial phase of Day 1 procurement activity. This is important, as our ambition for a wide range of service needs to be able to be met via the Dynamic Framework remains. 

Impacts on staff 

3.26. Supporting staff through this process is critical to its successful transition and delivery. Our approach remains to work closely with Trade Unions, current employers and staff to support the transition and minimise impacts on people’s roles. Whilst we need to do a more detailed review, using updated data returns from CRCs around specific staff impacts of the new model, changes in respect of Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions mean we envisage that staff currently delivering equivalent services under CRCs will be assigned to transfer to the NPS. This provides certainty for a significant group of staff that would otherwise have been reliant on outcomes of the Probation Delivery Partner competition to inform what would happen to them. 

3.27. As outlined in the draft Target Operating Model, we will protect staff terms and conditions following transfer and most new staff compulsorily transferring into the NPS will be eligible to join the local government pension scheme post transfer. The exception is those who retain eligibility to participate in the civil service pension scheme. 

3.28. The practicalities of bringing an increased volume of staff from an increased number of employers into the NPS will necessitate renewed Trade Union negotiations and longer lead in times for enabling activity such as payroll build and testing and vetting. It is also likely to mean that we will need to focus on getting fundamental requirements in place for Day 1 and implement further changes such as restructuring post transfer. As part of the transition we will ensure that those staff moving into the NPS are fully orientated and supported. 

3.29. The establishment of a separate workforce programme, working in close collaboration with probation reform, to develop and build our workforce is in recognition that our people are our most valued asset. We acknowledge the likely increase in training needs created by this change and remain committed to identifying and addressing learning, development and experience gaps for our staff. 

3.30. We recognise the anxiety that staff will be feeling around change to this new system and want to be able to support them through it. This includes providing stimulating work that motivates and engages staff. We want to build a positive work environment that attracts, retains and develops skilled people and champions positive behaviours and practices. We intend to publish our Workforce Strategy shortly, which will set out intentions in more detail and ensure that wider changes happening in probation go hand-in-hand with positive changes for our workforce.

4. Next Steps 

4.1. We will very quickly reprofile the probation reform programme to reflect the revised model. This will include reprioritising resource to those areas that will support a smooth transition and reviewing key milestones to June 2021 and beyond to ensure successful implementation and embedding of the changes. 

4.2. We intend to publish an updated version of the Target Operating Model for the future of probation services early in 2021 to provide further detail on the new system, informed by the changes that we have announced as well as the opportunities presented by new ways of working that we have had to introduce as a result of COVID-19. 

4.3. We will develop a revised illustration of the changes to support engagement with colleagues and stakeholders to promote awareness and participation in the future changes. 

4.4. We will continue to work with senior leaders within NPS and CRCs to explicitly address the culture(s) we currently have and what we are aiming for in the future. This work will be inclusive and recognise the diversity of our workforce and delivery. 

4.5. We will continue to engage closely with stakeholders and partners across the criminal justice system in developing our plans.

New Look Probation

The Probation Inspectorate's report into the Durham Tees Valley area gives us an opportunity to see in some detail what a 'transformed' probation service looks like:-

5.1. Effectiveness of the CRC 

Organisational issues 

DTV was a small CRC covering a relatively large geographical area. It sat within two police force areas, those of Durham and Cleveland. At the time of the inspection, the CRC had concluded a major review of its operating arrangements and management structure, with the two CRC Local Delivery Units (LDUs), one for Durham and the other for Tees Valley (sometimes described as Teesside or Cleveland), combined into one. The former arrangement of two LDUs, however, was in place for the entire period we inspected. We looked at the work from Durham LDU, which included work with participants living in County Durham and the unitary authority of Darlington. 

In common with other CRCs, DTV CRC had to deal with all incoming requests for data, renegotiations of contracts, Probation Instructions, IT and other procurement issues, buildings, inspection, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) audits, staffing matters and anything else to do with running a private sector body delivering a contract to central government. As DTV was a small entity, this had stretched the CRC’s limited management resources considerably since June 2014. 

The projected workloads calculated prior to Transforming Rehabilitation had not come to fruition.* For DTV, the actual workload was around 30% lower than anticipated. That had an adverse impact on the CRC’s income. In order to manage its budget, the CRC had reviewed its management capacity and operating model. Additionally, they had lost frontline staff via natural attrition since Transforming Rehabilitation. For the whole of the CRC, i.e. the area covered by both Durham and Tees Valley, this had amounted to a reduction in the overall staffing complement of over 15% between June 2014 and April 2016 (with offender management reduced by about 23%). DTV had historically been a Probation Trust that enjoyed a low staff turnover, and most of the staff in post at the time of this inspection had been employed by the Trust prior to Transforming Rehabilitation. They retained a strong sense of loyalty and attachment to their new employing organisation. Overall, we found staff morale was good. With all the changes experienced, that, in itself, was a positive finding.

ARCC, the owning body, had appointed a new, independent, Chair in January 2016. The post-holder was a respected individual with a high-profile probation background. His, and ARCC’s, immediate priorities were to deliver improved governance arrangements, gain financial security for the CRC and provide a focus on performance (particularly that which had a financial impact). At the time of the inspection, this was work in progress, delivered with a fresh impetus. 

Shortly before the start of this inspection, the CRC had completed the planned move of its staff from the offices it had previously shared with the NPS, introducing remote or ‘agile’ working. This involved staff working from within their local communities, in community justice hubs and ‘office work’ from home when appropriate. While hubs had been in operation within DTV since 2011, historically they had mainly been used as reporting centres for those who had sufficiently addressed their offending related needs and could be managed on a ‘maintenance’ basis. The new method of working for operational staff from the CRC involved most contact with ‘participants’, the term used by the CRC to describe offenders or service users, taking place within the community hubs throughout their period of supervision. 

The new operating model provided one CRC office in Durham (there was a second CRC office in Stockton-on-Tees, for the south part of the CRC area). The senior management function operated across both sites. At the time we inspected, there were 17 hubs across the whole of the Durham area. This new way of working was dependent on responsible officers having appropriate and reliable IT facilities. It was impressive that the CRC had successfully delivered the required technological solution with so little staff dissatisfaction.

Phase two of IT developments needed to support the operating model, that is, delivery of its locally developed case management and workflow system, was scheduled for roll-out later in the year. There were a number of external barriers to be overcome with NOMS before phase two was available to responsible officers. The new case management and workflow system had been designed to provide real-time information to staff, and flag up what individual officers needed to do and by when to maximise CRC income through achievement of contractual performance measures. 

Like all other CRCs, DTV CRC was subject to monitoring against the contractual targets it had with NOMS. At the end of March 2016, the CRC was performing well against their contractual requirements and those measures applied by NOMS to provide assurance. 

Through the Gate resettlement services were introduced in May 2015 as part of the contract for CRCs. The aim was to provide access to resettlement services for all prisoners, including those remanded in custody and those who were subject to sentences of less than 12 months. The Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 introduced statutory post-release supervision for short sentence prisoners. This group of offenders had long been recognised as having very high rates of reoffending, and Through the Gate services were introduced to address that. Within the CRC area, Durham had higher reoffending rates than England & Wales as a whole, with those in Darlington being higher than those for County Durham (Appendix 2 Table 5). 

The CRC had deployed considerable resources into Through the Gate, more than was reflected within the ‘fee for service’ income paid for delivery of these services by NOMS. That was encouraging, and demonstrated the CRC’s commitment to tackling high reoffending rates. Through the Gate provided a service to prisoners in relation to accommodation; finance and debt; and education, training and employment (ETE). Support was also offered to sex workers and those who were victims of domestic abuse. 

Although opportunities were in place for the NPS to purchase programmes and services from the CRC, in practice this happened infrequently. Normally, this only occurred when mandated by the sentence of the court. The CRC was unable to access court trend data or identify wider offender needs, which meant they were less able, proactively, to spot the gaps in provision and fill them.

* National Audit Office ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ report dated 28 April 2016. Paragraph 4.3 says ‘The extent and pace of CRCs’ transformation plans have become more uncertain because their case volumes are much lower than planned during bidding. Volumes are down between 6% and 36% against the mid-point agreed in the contracts’.

Operational issues 

The CRC had produced a document entitled Processes and Quality Standards – Community Justice Hub, which set out the requirements, beliefs and practices for the hubs. This included health and safety considerations for staff working in them. The CRC saw the hubs as offering a one-stop shop facility for participants, providing a supportive environment to help them move away from, and out of, offending. The aspiration was to provide a physical environment that they described within the document as: ‘welcoming, informal, educational and purposeful, often comprised of a café type layout in a community centre where members of the local community are already attending. When the community justice hubs are operating well, they should resemble a vibrant community centre that anyone would want to attend, where colleagues, participants and agencies can have refreshments together, access the internet, and move forward together offering and accessing support and guidance. There should be a buzz atmosphere’. 

During the two weeks of the inspection, we inspected in ten of the community justice hubs across Durham. In some, we spent considerable periods of time and observed how they worked in practice. We spoke with responsible officers, participants, staff from other agencies, volunteers and a peer mentor. While a number of the hubs clearly met the aims of the CRC, others fell short. We thought the level of services provided at an individual hub would have a direct impact on a participant’s experience and progress towards desistance. The limited times some hubs were open, including some only available fortnightly, potentially had an adverse impact for some participants - for example those on weekly appointments or in employment. Senior managers described some of the less busy hubs, which offered little in the way of partner or provider attendance, as ‘reporting centres’. Their view was that participants could move between hubs to access services. In reality, for a number of participants that was not a practicable option. 

There was variable attendance of other agencies at the hubs, and, even when they did attend, their times on site were often uncertain. At the busiest hubs, Foundation Housing and an Integrated Offender Management (IOM) police officer were frequently present. Careers advice was also provided, with Change4Life (general health) and Lifeline (substance misuse) also attending. Support from administrative staff at the hubs had been withdrawn a few weeks prior to our inspection. Responsible officers staffing the busier hubs regretted the loss of that support. As a consequence of the withdrawal of administrators, the ‘meet and greet’ role at the hubs then fell to responsible officers, which some felt detracted from their ability to undertake their main duties. 

At the time of the inspection, the CRC was working towards integrating volunteers into the hub teams. There was no strategy or policy document in relation to volunteers, but there was an intention to produce a policy that would include role descriptions and identified areas of responsibility. There was one active peer mentor in Durham, but others were in place across the CRC as a whole. 

Following receipt of the required health and safety training, each responsible officer had been provided with a security device called Identicom which was a global position system locator. It provided a microphone so the individual responsible officer was able to ask for help if an urgent situation arose. Not all the hubs were easy to manage from a health and safety perspective. Some of them gave open access through the front door, and in some hubs there was a risk staff on duty may not have known who was in the building at all times.

Hubs were well located within the communities they served, with good access by public transport. Some would have benefited from better signage. In our view, there was a good geographical spread of hubs. 

In those less busy hubs where responsible officers were often waiting for participants to arrive, and where there were a lack of other agencies in attendance, reliability of the IT arrangements meant staff on duty could undertake administrative tasks without detriment to their productivity. We saw one hub, however, where responsible officers were having difficulty connecting via their laptops’ wireless connection. To address that, senior managers had provided all responsible officers with a compatible smartphone that provided a ‘hot spot’ boost to improve connectivity. Managers were reviewing the effectiveness of the arrangements to make sure they were reliable and cost effective. We thought the IT arrangements provided to responsible officers were impressive, with improved functionality promised for the relatively near future. 

Overall, we thought there was great promise in the hubs. The variable provision indicated a need to spread the best practice of some of the busier hubs, such as the ones in the city of Durham, across the area. In the meantime, and in acknowledgement of the difficulties they faced in securing attendance of partner and provider agencies at all the hubs as required, the CRC had an ambition, not yet realised, of arranging alternative, timely, appointments for participants with the relevant agencies. 

Accredited programmes were delivered at the CRC office on the outskirts of Durham. As it was difficult to access by public transport, bus fares were provided from participants’ homes to the city railway station, and the CRC then provided minibus transport for participants (both CRC and NPS) from the railway station to the office where accredited programmes were held. The programmes delivered by the CRC included Building Better Relationships and RESOLVE (both aimed at domestic abuse perpetrators), the Thinking Skills Programme and Drink Impaired Drivers programme. The last of these had been recently introduced in response to an identified gap in demand. Some NPS managers and responsible officers told us communication from CRC programmes staff could be improved in relation to sharing details of programmes available, current waiting times and the compliance and progress of their offenders undertaking a programme. Apart from where included as a requirement of a court order, there was little purchasing of programmes by the NPS. CRC middle managers noted a reduced demand for the Thinking Skills Programme, but could not evidence numbers due to a lack of access to court data. 

NOMS conducted an audit of three of the programmes delivered by the CRC (RESOLVE, Building Better Relationships and the Thinking Skills Programme) in late 2015, with the report issued to the CRC in March 2016. The findings were positive, with high rates of programme completions recorded (100% for RESOLVE) for the period covered by the audit. Positive feedback was received from participants and staff, with results for 12 of the 15 questions scoring higher (considerably higher in relation to some questions) than the average for all the CRCs that had undergone the audit previously. 

Harbour was delivering a rolling 27-week groupwork programme for men who were abusive and controlling towards their partners. The only exclusion was for those men who had a severe mental health condition. Although men attended the group voluntarily, attendance was enforceable if specified in relation to rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) days. Waiting times to start the programme were only about one month. The programme was available free of charge to men from across the DTV area, with the exception of Darlington. If a perpetrator from Darlington would benefit from the service, the CRC could purchase a place for them. We saw this as a useful resource for responsible officers from across the CRC. The Harbour service manager told us, however, there had been limited take-up to date. Harbour also offered a range of other services including a women’s refuge, five women’s safety workers who had weekly contact with victims, sexual violence counselling and a programme, Freedom, that helped women understand the beliefs of abusive men.

The quality of some of the practice we saw during this inspection was not likely to lead to reduced reoffending for participants. We saw little evidence of effective management oversight. Senior managers acknowledged that spans of control for the new community participation manager positions (four for the whole of the DTV CRC area) were large, but foresaw the impending case and workflow management system identifying on a risk basis the areas for management focus. Senior managers had concluded a major piece of work whereby cases were categorised into three intensification levels (set following analysis of Offender Group Reconviction Scores, risk flags, Child Protection etc.). This work aimed to provide greater equality of workload to the CRC’s four new community participation teams and the responsible officers within them. 

Responsible officers provided a mixed picture about their training. Some thought it good; others said little had been delivered. A number of officers were positive about Child Protection training delivered in 2015. The experience profile of many CRC responsible officers meant they already possessed substantial knowledge of core probation practice. The areas of training identified by responsible officers and other staff we spoke with as being required included the national case management system (nDelius), sentence plans, working with domestic abuse perpetrators (although, again, some responsible officers said effective training had been delivered), and working with participants who had mental health problems. 

At the time of our inspection, management restructuring at senior and middle manager levels was concluding. Indeed, a number of managers left their employment with the CRC at the end of the first week of our inspection. We heard consistent messages from responsible officers about the quality of their supervision and management support. Individual middle managers were highly regarded, kept an ‘open door’ and were seen as always willing and able to help with work issues or other problems. While recognising managers were busy and stretched, however, responsible officers told us formal supervision was rarely, or in some instances not, taking place. Management support had become reactive. Some relatively inexperienced staff reported they possessed insufficient knowledge in key aspects of their job; one said oversight was minimal and there was a lack of discussion around Child Protection and domestic abuse cases. 

While caseloads appeared manageable, with the exception of Darlington (acknowledged by senior managers as high, and in the process of being redressed), the comment of one responsible officer was illuminating:

“I have a caseload that is manageable. My manager is approachable, but we have to go to them. It is not a proactive management style. This is because of our agile working. Management systems have not become agile at the same time”. 

What responsible officers told us resonated with what we found when inspecting the 31 cases: little evidence of management oversight in those cases where we would have expected to have seen it. 

In relation to Through the Gate, DTV CRC was the lead host for four prisons within its area – HMP Low Newton (housing women), HMP Durham, HMP Holme House and HMP Kirklevington Grange (an open prison). The former two of those were located in County Durham, while the latter two were in Tees Valley. The NOMS contract and compliance teams had spent a lot of time looking at Through the Gate arrangements in England & Wales, and it was not part of our remit to inspect Through the Gate activity. 

Nonetheless, we met with staff working in the ‘departure lounge’ of HMP Low Newton on this inspection. CRC staff told us they saw everyone at the prison on reception, and their first task was to complete the resettlement plan on all offenders except, from May 2016, for those from Northumbria who were the responsibility of Sodexo Changing Lives. The CRC told us the basic screening information completed by the prison was often very limited. The CRC, therefore, reviewed the basic custody screening document (BCS1) before undertaking the resettlement plan (BCS2). 

The above observation about the quality of basic custody screening documents correlated with what we had found in a pilot inspection we carried out on Through the Gate in late 2015/early 2016 with HMI Prisons. HMP Low Newton was one of the prisons visited during that pilot, and the only one that housed women who had offended. The pilot inspection had looked at prisoners due for release in the following few weeks, with a focus on those who had received sentences of less than 12 months under the new Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 legislation. A report with recommendations was sent to NOMS early in 2016. That report said ‘the overall quality of planning was significantly better in the one prison where staff were direct CRC employees. For example, there was an excellent resettlement plan prepared by the CRC staff in custody. It identified work needed on accommodation, ETE, finance, benefit and debt, and drugs. The plan was updated to show what work had been done, and in the end she was able to go back to her previous accommodation after that had been checked out.’ The prison referred to in the above comment about the overall quality of planning was HMP Low Newton. 

DTV CRC worked with two supply chain providers in Durham to provide Through the Gate services. The Wise Group offered the full range of services to prisoners to address their offending-related needs. When CRC staff identified needs that required addressing, they made a referral to Wise. 

North East Prisoner After Care Society ran the visitors’ centre and departure lounge. On the morning we visited, a woman who had been released commented, in our presence, on the welcoming and friendly environment provided within the departure lounge. We thought it provided a positive transition following release and prior to a released prisoner making their journey home. In the case of the woman released when we were present, the CRC probation service officer (PSO) within the Through the Gate team clarified the woman’s understanding of her licence conditions before she set off on her journey home. That woman had no accommodation to return to, which augured badly for her ability to avoid future offending. She admitted she was likely to mix with sophisticated offenders as soon as she arrived in her home area, and was therefore likely to steal to fund her drug use. 

The CRC held Wise to account by a monthly operational contract meeting. North East Prisoner After Care Society was able to show us many positive testimonials from women who had used and appreciated the departure lounge facility. 

To date, the CRC had not managed to become as involved as they would have liked in the general induction programme offered to all new prisoners, which would have provided an opportunity to motivate prisoners to take advantage of the Through the Gate arrangements. While the CRC copied resettlement plans into PNOMIS (the prison case management system), which we thought good practice, their staff did not have access to nDelius in the prison. That meant information had to be sent via secure email and then entered into the case management system by case administrators. That was not efficient, and potentially led to delays in sharing information with responsible officers. 

For women leaving HMP Low Newton, there was a volunteer mentor/support group, Open Gate. It primarily helped with the practical issue of transporting women to the local train station, which would have been otherwise problematic due to the rural location of the prison. There was a reasonable range of interventions available to women in the prison, including the Freedom Programme and those provided by Relate. 

Elsewhere, the CRC was unable to get Through the Gate outcome data from the NPS or out of area CRCs. Prisoners were low down on the priority list for local authorities, and few left prison with settled accommodation. Despite that, senior managers were clear Through the Gate was the right thing in which to invest their resources, but would be keeping the scheme under review. 

The CRC contributed to a range of social action projects in Darlington that enabled participants to make a positive contribution to their community. This chimed with the theory that desistance from offending was promoted by ‘normalising’ the individual who had offended and integrating them, as someone of value, into their local community. At the heart of the initiative was a desire to deliver effective programmes to reduce reoffending, through placing social investment in the community at the heart of rehabilitation. It took the premise that, if a person was to move forward and make positive changes to their life that reduced the likelihood of them reoffending, they needed to be able to develop a more positive sense of self. 

At the time of the inspection, there were three social action schemes with which the CRC was involved, all run under the umbrella heading of ‘Making good by giving back’. There was a monthly lunch club attached to the Darlington Fire Station community justice hub. The lunch club acted as an opportunity for participants to develop work-based and life skills, build their confidence and improve their likelihood of gaining employment.

Good practice example: The first cohort of participants attending the Darlington Fire Station lunch club gained a level 2 certificate in food hygiene. One-third of the participants went on to gain employment in the catering industry. A participant who had volunteered at the lunch club said: “Taking part in social action was the best thing I had done for myself, or anyone else, in a long time. It gave me the confidence to try something new. I had not worked for many years, but my experience here gave me the courage to apply for a job as a clerk. I know it is not in catering, but being involved in social action has helped me believe in myself again and has given me something to put on my CV and the confidence to go to an interview. And yes, I got the job!” 

The second social action project was a peace garden. The CRC worked with a local councillor on designing, planning and creating it in tribute to two First World War veterans who lived locally. The garden was scheduled to open in July 2016 to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. The CRC was planning to be involved in its ongoing maintenance. 

The third social action project was a joint venture with FRADE, a furniture re-use charity. Participants from the CRC and volunteers had renovated buildings at the back of the charity’s furniture shop. The aim of the project was for donated furniture to be renovated in the workshops and then sold in FRADE’s shop, with a percentage of the profits reinvested in the social action project. The project, entitled Re-build, provided a wrap-around service for participants with an opportunity for them to develop CVs and receive careers advice. Although the building works were only just completed at the time of our inspection, we met with some of the individuals involved in the work. One young man told us how working on the project had raised his confidence levels and he had achieved an interview for a job the following week. A different participant told us how the CRC staff involved on the project had treated him and others with decency. 

We thought the social action projects were ideal ventures in which individuals subject to CRC supervision could be encouraged to participate. Such attendance could be counted as RAR days. Throughout the inspection, we found confusion about RAR days from sentencers, managers and responsible officers alike. It was disappointing, therefore, that staff involved with the social action projects expressed concerns about a lack of ‘buy-in’ from responsible officers and their worries referrals would not be forthcoming.

Bleak Futures Week 17

Stockton office in Teesside losing six staff to TTG. Two Admin and four practitioners. AFAIK none have been given security clearance so I'm unsure how they are going to work in the Prison(s). Caseloads shared between remaining staff who are already buckling with post TR and ORA cases. I heard one staff member was holding over 70 cases which I feel is quite dangerous (obviously the findings from the Sonnex/Monckton review have been disregarded). Most of her time is spent completing Oasys to make sure targets are hit. Sad times :(

*****
Do we know how many from other offices around the country have lost staff? It's turning into a right dogs wotsits. Given that 80% of the caseloads went to the CRC's, who had 40% of the staff, I'm not sure how much more can be shared out without the whole things becoming a debacle!

*****
CRCs had 40% of the staff? How is that figure arrived at? Surely most staff went to CRCs and NPS is smaller?

*****
It varied. 45/55 in my area, NPS/CRC

*****
One CRC missed its ISP completion target - got 0% simply because they changed the way they gathered the stats and didn't tell practitioners who should've been putting a delius entry 'oasys completed'. This failure potentially could have resulted in fines amounting to thousands of pounds - I think but am not sure that no penalties were enforced this time.

*****
Having experience with the Work Programme, one of the major issues (and it creates the capacity for fraud), was the constant (almost weekly) changing of how data was recorded and presented. It's a nightmare for those working within the primes, but for those further down the food chain it's hell and many subcontractor organisations went to the wall when they failed to be paid by the primes month after month on the basis of submitting uncompliant files to support invoices.

This could be one of the issues with Purple Futures and Addaction at the moment. I hate to say it, but there will be many days where some will feel unfairly reprimanded because you've been pulled over the coals for not doing things in the way the big bosses want it done, but no-one bothered to tell you! And a lot of the time even if someone does bother to tell you there's a change, what you're advised to do doesn't work anyway, and it's all changed again the following month. Those that rely on the primes for payment will find themselves going hungry pretty often I fear.

*****
It's been alluded to, quite often, that failed targets means lost jobs. I think out Chief has been taking tips from DV perps!

*****
Not entirely true! Many of the smaller fish feeding off the primes struggle to produce the 'paper trails' and outcome evidence that are required by the primes to release payment, and are therefore pushed into recruiting more admin staff to deal with the workload. Extra cost to them, but the primes still pay the same agreed amount per outcome.

My experience with the Work Programme in no way makes me an expert on the cut throat world of outsourcing, but I do predict that pretty soon tier 2 and 3 of the 'supply chain' will be heard squealing very loudly (and hopefully very publicly), about the unfair and unworkable demands imposed on them by the primes. Purple Poopers and Madaction are I think only the first of many 'relationship' breakdowns that TR will experience.

*****
It is my understanding that once ISP signed and locked, within 24 hours it automatically uploads on to Delius - no one in my office is recording ISP completed manually onto N-Delius.

*****
Well there must be something going wrong cos ours definitely came back at 0% and there is only one way to sign and lock an OASys - why one Area's automatically uploads to Delius and anothers doesn't is a mystery.

*****
Well we are talking N-Delius my friend and OASys is now worse than it ever was and it was bad enough before. It's a complete load of you know what.

*****
OASys and Delius only talk to one another over night so whilst you might believe you have 10 days to complete the ISP, you only have 9 and so in some areas you have to put in a manual entry that it has been completed just to make sure nothing is missed.

*****
In response, when creating an ISP assessment in Oasys you have to link this to Delius so that when it's locked it sends an update back to Delius. If the OAsys assessment is locked on day 10 the system doesn't update until early hours of the next morning making it look like it's been completed on day 11. Therefore you have to put a manual entry into Delius to replicate the date on 10 to hit targets. We have been doing this in our area and are hitting this target with relative ease.

*****
No-one's told us how to link anything to Delius - the whole CRC has not been doing this so it's not like some of us were doing it and others weren't. We've now been told to just put the delius entry 'oasys completed' on.

*****
We have been told not to make entry manually. Told to do ISPs in 8 days to allow countersigning where required and 24 hrs to upload from OASys to Delius. Every upgrade makes it more flawed, perhaps that is causing issue now.

*****
I think you'll find that this all relates to the DOG'S BREAKFAST THESE AMATEURS HAVE CREATED. I have met a stream of providers over recent weeks and they are all remarkably unimpressive and equally ill-informed. They were warned but knew best. Watch the farce unfold.

*****
I fear when the penalty of not meeting targets for ffs or PbR, it's our jobs, those that are left, which if others go down Sodexo route won't be many. It is a shambles just as we all predicted but still we have Senior and Middle Management trying to tell us it's a wonderful opportunity - clueless.

*****
No surprise in seeing the payoff figures for the so-called senior executives. That's what happens when you keep your mouth shut, or if you keep it wide open with platitudes. And, of course, Napo paid off JL handsomely when a lesser mortal would have faced disciplinary action. It isn't fair, but it's the way ALL the establishments work. And they don't give a ****! And there ain't no God in heaven to put things right. 'Everybody knows that the dice are loaded....The poor get poor, the rich get rich/That's how it goes/Everybody knows...'

*****
Look it was worth every penny to be rid of Russell Bruce....many of you would be astonished as to how he treated staff, the 'new' management all seek to distance themselves from his management style "let's just say things will be done differently" is the phrase being used.

*****
Cheshire have been told that there will be no more Education Training and Employment (ETE) staff in the community. They will either be made redundant or be sent into the Prisons to try and make 'through the gate' services work. When asked what our clients will do who need their assistance in the community, we were told "direct them to the job centre". Great!

*****
I had the misfortune of having to attend the job centre mainly to get my stamp paid. It is run by people who started there at 16 on apprenticeships and have never had to look for work. Some of our Clients wouldn't stand a chance of gaining employment, they need the encouragement and one to one help. Not everyone has the ability to just apply for hundreds of jobs which is what it takes now and hit on the right job instantly. The ETE staff are needed in probation another resource that will be lost.

*****
Bidders chose to ignore voice of frontline probation, preferring to trust in & believe Grayling et al. They're now finding out the truth but refuse to publicly acknowledge this. They'll take out their frustration on frontline staff, e.g. resisting to honour the redundancy agreement. As has been highlighted on this blog many times, it yet again mirrors the abusive behaviours we (as probation staff) have to challenge on a daily basis, i.e. the bullying, irrational & power-base abuse exemplified in DV & sexual offence perpetrators. Not enough peas on your plate? So spend the evening terrorising your partner before beating her to a pulp. Someone has to pay... Pass it on.

*****
We fought and lost....we struck and lost....we challenged bad managerial practice and lost....every TR battle the workforce fought we lost while senior management ensured that their nests were well feathered and yet the sell off went ahead and yet.......The man in the pub tells me that alarm bells are seriously ringing now with the realisation that TTG is a cobbled together disaster in the making. The Secretary of State is now looking forward to his next posting and Messrs Allars and Payne getting ready to carry the can to allow the next government to try and modify the contracts that have been awarded. Could it really be true that it's always darkest before the dawn?

*****
So they're putting job cuts on hold... until when? Until September when they can use compulsory redundancy? Until they have trained tier 2&3 providers to do TTG? Until after the election so we're not causing a fuss? It suits Sodexo/ Nacro's timeline to delay.

*****
I am appalled by the statement. Throughout all of my TU Reps training the message being hammered home was that the ultimate role of the union is to prevent job losses. Therefore, in my opinion phrases like 'unavoidable job losses' should NEVER be uttered by a Trade Union Rep involved in redundancy negotiation processes. It signals collusion in the process and plays right into the employers hands. Someone (later) in this thread poses the question - who do we think we are - the NUM? Well, at this point I wish we were - NAPO presents as just a toothless lion by comparison..

*****
Everyone knows it is the hard working local reps who advise members if they are facing issues including redundancy not the GS or the weak symbolic Joint Chairs or in fact anyone on the top table. People need their union for support and guidance when they are feeling at their most vulnerable so let's recognise and thank the people who do the hard work everyday.

*****
It will be those with union association that will be first through the door. No room for opposition in private enterprise. NAPO need to realise that apart from its membership concerns, it's in a fight for its own existence.

*****
"As you would expect we have fully briefed politicians about these developments, and while it is difficult to secure as much media coverage as we would like during an election campaign that is focused on anything but law and justice, be sure that in the event of a different colour administration being returned, we will be knocking on doors very loudly."

1. Who have you briefed? There are no MPs until Parliament is reassembled. Until then, who gives a fig? 

2. You never secured media coverage when numerous opportunities were handed to you on a plate.

3. I would expect my subs to fund you knocking loudly on those doors REGARDLESS of the colour of administration, not just if there's a change of colour.

4. This is my professional career, 30 years of my life. It's already been diluted into probation-lite, its now being reformulated into a 'just-add-water' version. No depth of flavour, no nuance, no character; just a bland, one-size-fits-all product wrapped in a shiny box. "See ya down MaccyP's, yeah?"

*****
With very few notable exceptions, no MP stood up for us before, when TR could have been stopped. Briefing prospective candidates & getting their lame words of support ain't going to stop Sod-U-Co getting rid of staff.

Isn't there something called employment law which protects employees from being exploited? Where's the legal advice about contracts that have been signed? How can our union on one day talk about staff protection being "enshrined" in the national agreement, then the next day be sharing skinny lattes with Sod-U-Co and releasing statements to the effect that "some losses are unavoidable" ?

What do I think this is? I thought I was paying into a trade union & professional association who were committed to protecting my interests as a professionally qualified Probation Officer, not financing my own professional funeral. I thought I was contributing to the not insubstantial salaries of trade union activists, not apologists for bullies - whether ministerial or global enterprise.

*****
A company can terminate all employees contracts and immediately re-employ them on different terms. If employees don't like the new terms and don't sign they will have deemed to have resigned. The Unions can do nothing about it. Employment law isn't worth the paper it's written on. It happened to Probation Partnership workers. Some had their salary cut by 5k per year.

*****
There may be job losses, but IL emphasises that they be on the EVR terms. There is no green light here for compulsory redundancies. And, on job losses, there have been hundreds over the past four or five years in the form of voluntary redundancies and there has never been a shortage of takers, though there have been many who were disappointed not to get VR. So those who bemoan job losses need a bit of historical perspective in their thinking. A respite is a good thing.

*****
I don't read it as this at all. I read it as no redundancies for now (not even enhanced) then compulsory redundancies in September. Given that most people want to leave if they get enhanced, this is just a way of stringing staff along until compulsory redundancies can be made.

*****
Who are they trying to kid? They don't have 'colleagues' in Sodexo – they have bosses. They don't 'discuss' – they follow orders. It was agreed on Monday between unions and Sodexo to pause. The CEOs are merely ciphers with no volition of their own.

*****
But this is the consequence of the unions getting into bed with Sodexo; Sodexo play them like a mandolin, then issue scripted instructions to local CRC management, effectively regional puppets of the Sodexo imperial commanders. This is why your view of "its okay" is being challenged.

*****
Yes Essex received a similar email today, but making it clear that this had been an agreement between all parties after union talks. Essex hasn't started consultation yet over potential redundancies. It's still very much mushroom management at this stage.

*****
Same email in Cumbria and Lancs CRC - in fact the intial paragraph is exactly the same as above. (Looks like a pre-planned approach) The email also points out that this only applies to Corporate Services staff at the moment as they have started with formal consultations since the 2nd April.

*****
Very similar email in Northumbria also.

*****
Thanks to Chris Grayling, collaborators across all Trusts, Sodexo and the weasels managing the CRC, and what seems to be meltdown by the unions. There will be several more CRC months of misery, ill health, long-term sickness, uncertainty, stressful work environments. - whilst enduring the crowing from an insensitive core of NPS staff with their new cars in the car park, loud conversations about holiday plans & voting Lib Dem "to get the pay increase for public sector workers". Can't fucking wait. Thanks a bunch. The torture never stops.

*****
There are some nauseating NPS staff in our office doing the same thing. They haven't worked for probation for 2 mins. Administration especially rubbing their colleagues noses in it. I don't know how I am still going into work!

*****
I am so so sorry. I am NPS and will do anything I can to see us reunited in the public sector. I have heard an NPS colleague 'crowing' as you put it and it disgusted me, she reported me to management when I protested. BUT the vast majority of my colleagues are not crowing, we know we are not safe and the axe will fall on NPS in the next round of cuts post election. I just wish we could all stand together.

*****
How can courts have so many report writers and yet the quality of them be so poor? Brief outline of offence: stole 5 packs of bacon. No more the time and date of the offence etc. Oasys used to be one of the easiest parts of the job as it mainly contained of transferring info from PSR to oasys but not anymore. Every line I read of an FDR raises questions as they are making statements but not expanding on the reason for said statement. I hate oasys it's a millstone round my neck.

*****
My personal favourite NPS gem: "OASys completed less than 6 months ago so no requirement to undertake rosh or OASys at PSR stage." Lost so deeep in the grass.

*****
The IT is such a massive part of the problem. It's so overly complicated that we can't even do the most basic assessment in less than half a day. How the new contractors can even think about building an interface to bridge two ridiculous systems that won't stand still for five minutes is beyond me.

*****
It's a joke. The CRC chiefs don't even have the balls to write an email in their own words. It's utterly pathetic that these people, most of whom have already lined their own pockets, are still trying to sell us the myth that they are in control! If they had opened their greedy eyes or had any degree of care/loyalty to their staff, they would have stood firm years ago but no, they chose to sell us down the river and that will never change.

*****
The wrong choices Napo members made was not to strike. 20% of my Trusts Napo members took action, the rest bottled it. No-one to blame but themselves.

*****
I am sorry to be so confused but I do not understand anything. If SOD exo have to make voluntary redundancies on enhanced terms for the life of the contract, surely this would obviate a compulsory redundancy situation from arising? Why then in the agreement is there reference to 'no compulsory redundancy in the first 7 months'? Can anyone explain, in simple terms? Thanks in anticipation.

*****
So I see it as this - figures released by MPloy indicate (for example) 30 x PO, 19 x admin, 15 x management posts are to be lost. Phase One = announce & consult with those 'at risk'. Redeployment or other options are considered, figures re-visited then requests are for indications of those wanting to take VR. Phase Two, assuming figures aren't met, compulsories are chosen. If too many volunteer then I guess they have to use selection criteria? How does that sound?

*****
As I understand it, it would not necessarily be the case that the organisation's need to re-organise (reduce staffing levels) would totally be met by those who might want to go. It could be "wrong" grades etc who wanted to go ie people the org wanted to keep so would not grant those applications. Hence you could end up with situation when org argued it needed less staff, had allowed EVR where it deemed it feasible and redeployed those it could and still had view it had to reduce staff complement. In which case it's left with compulsory redundancies ie saying we need so many who fit this criteria and then they assess all staff in that group and determine who scores highest on the agreed "eligible" criteria (eg worst capability or disciplinary or attendance record etc).

*****
So does it have to offer voluntary redundancy before compulsory?

*****
Yes but just because the org says it needs to lose 50 staff that doesn't mean it pays out 50 VRs; (see above) as may be staff who apply may not be deemed suitable.

*****
This is understood. Thanks. However, what I still don't get is why, given EVR lasts the 7 years, SOD exo don't have to just offer this again in the scenario you describe (ie get rid at one point, then want to shed more a few months later). I am clearly no good to them as I have no business brain, and am a wooly thinker!!!

*****
Because businesses (including the old Trusts) typically work to annual budgets. They'll want to streamline sooner rather than later (when Serco took over Unpaid Work in London they began consultations on redundancies within a month of starting) If Sodexo or whomever, say the org needs to lose staff their estimates will be to lose this year rather than next (although they could revise their business plans again next year. This is not new. For example, we had about 3 "revisions" of staffing levels for Unpaid work in Lancs over about 5yrs).

*****
Thinking about this a bit more, I speculate the Sodexo will back track a little in order to seem reasonable. EVR will go to large chunks of CRC senior staff such as ACO grades and their friends in finance, PA's, etc, maybe a few select SPO's that were good at brown-nosing over the years. We all know this is how probation trusts worked and they created policies to enable this. This is how Chiefs and their friends left with tidy nest eggs. Operational staff from PO grade downwards will not get a sniff of EVR and instead be on the compulsory redundancy list, actually they are already on the list and they just don't know it. Some PO's will be offered alternative roles as PSO's. PSO's will face changes in job descriptions to justify pay cuts. Admins will be shown the door. I suspect job titles will change to justify the above.

*****
What this blog shows to me is that partner agencies are confused about the new structures and don't know which AGENCY to call, never mind which officer. The simple truth is that PROBATION' the brand has been compromised and no-one knows or trusts the new structures. Historically, this provider would have been supported through their enquiry by a single agency with a professional and emotional commitment to service delivery and public protection. Now we have confusion, buck passing and poor quality information. A bad idea badly executed.

*****
I have trouble catching my SPO and I work in the same office so as an outsider you were always on a hiding to nothing.

*****
In our area the housing providers would have determined him as not suitable for housing because, with a criminal conviction, he immediately represents a risk of anti-social behaviour. Problem solved before it arises. Next?

Seriously, folks, that is what we have to contend with. Local Authority homeless, housing providers from ALL sectors and police all hold on to this approach. It's a friggin nightmare getting anyone housed, CRC or NPS. Shelter have closed their offices here and baled out, which doesn't help matters.

*****
I'm a CRC officer and if I had received this information, I would have actioned it. No matter which side of the divide created by MoJ we still have a responsibility. As repeated numerous times here, any MAPPA eligible cases should be NPS. I previously stated we have had a number in my area incorrected allocated - but once this has been raised by Officer allocated case, a reallocation has taken place. I oppose TR and everything about it, but if as individuals we do not take responsibility to action RISK then we just add to an already dangerous environment.

*****
The real problem is that profit rules. Whatever situation arises, if there's no pennies to be made from it, then leave it alone and fingers crossed, it'll just go away. As for the MAPPA issue, I think you'll find that quite a few MAPPA 1 cases will have been allocated to CRC on the basis of being medium risk regardless of whether they are subject to MAPPA or not.

*****
There are plenty of violent offenders who are MAPPA Level 1 by virtue of serving a 12 month sentence, don't forget them. The division is very clear - all MAPPA nominals, whatever level, go to NPS. It astounds me that we're nearly 12 months on from the split and this practice still isn't consistent. I'm not saying it makes sense - I have plenty of 'medium risk' cases on my CRC caseload who are one hell of a lot more dodgy than at lot of the MAPPA 1 cases I used to hold - but the dividing line is very clear.

*****
Well I work on reception and this would have been put through to NPS duty no question. It's standard practice to ask an outside agency which part of the business they need to speak to and if they do not know then a quick conversation would have signalled this as being NPS. We have it all the time, in that for some reason they have been given a name, ask for that person who now happens to be in a different side of the the business and they end up going around in circles. The phone systems are also a complete nightmare, for every one call we need to hang onto another 4 go onto the answer machine so it may be that this was just put through unannounced as a specific officer was asked for and it went onto someone's voicemail who wasn't in the office that day which probably includes the SPO on this particular day. I cannot see anyone ignoring this at all.

*****
Let's reflect a bit here. I am left to conclude that business as usual (pre TR) is not being delivered, yet that is the standard by which probation is being judged. Yes everything the guest blogger needed from probation would have been delivered, in the past. Staff are now exhausted and blighted by change. Sadly, the world has moved on and I believe effective communication is the single most crucial failure of the confused probation world I now inhabit.

As a PO in NPS, I am simply unable to process the volume of and means by which I am communicated at. I simply cannot read the daily lengthy and voluminous emails from the Hub. Probation Instructions remain unread until I need them because I cannot afford the time to read them and am now unable to retain the volume of instructions. I no longer know the information exchange protocols and my manager is available to the team approx 20% of the working week and frankly is in the same position. You see, the agencies we deal with have changed and I do not even recognise some of their organisation/business names. So I have decided I will use my professional judgement and if the risk issues justify information being exchanged I will do so.

I often google phone numbers of people leaving messages for me because at least it is a cursory check of sorts. I remain acutely aware that if I am later deemed to have disclosed inappropriately, I will be blamed and possibly disciplined, that is the world of new probation. It is not good enough, I agree with the guest blogger, but it is what has been imposed on us and we are all trying to muddle through. Now, how safe is that?

*****
Alongside all of this, what is being said about the unreasonable and unmanageable demands being placed on staff? Increasing duplication and bureaucracy. Managers and admin organising everything to meet their own needs, changes and more change to right errors in the first change. The list of error and incompetence is almost endless.

IT upgrades and shutdowns with hours notice, none of it actually improving anything, much of it detrimental. Stress and exhaustion rife. Meanwhile the Prison Service is storming on, accorded priority, promised increased income, people with a dangerously limited knowledge of what they are doing and having little if any understanding why they are doing it. Not that Prison didn't need one heck of a shake up. Who knows, perhaps they will get so good at sorting people out whilst they are nice and cozily locked away, that they won't need anyone to see people through 3, 4, 5, 6 and longer years of licence.