MoJ Gives Two-Fingered Salute

16 December 2014

Dear Mr Guilfoyle,

TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION

Thank you for your email of 30 October to Simon Hughes, Minister for Justice and Civil Liberties, regarding the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation Reforms, and your invitation for him to attend a meeting of Greater London Napo. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the department.

As you know, the Government is introducing fundamental reforms to tackle the problem of persistent reoffending which blights our communities. It may be helpful if I began by reiterating the rationale and context for the changes we are making to the probation service. Over recent years former Probation Trusts improved their performance. While this is a tribute to the hard work of Probation staff at all levels, it is widely agreed that we need to improve provision of services and support for those who reoffend the most – who are the offenders released from prison following sentences of less than 12 months.

As in every other part of Government, we are faced with the challenge of trying to do better for less. We can either impose further cuts on the structures we have, risking increases in reoffending and leaving short sentence offenders without support after release, or we can reform the system so that it provides more effective rehabilitation at a better value to the taxpayer. We want to do this in a way that is sustainable for the future and we are committed to reinvesting most of the savings we make in order to support supervision for short sentence offenders. We can only do that if we bring in the best of the public, voluntary and private sectors to work with offenders in order to reduce their reoffending rates.

As you may be aware, on 19 September last year we launched the competition to find the future owners of the Community Rehabilitation Companies which will deliver rehabilitation services in England and Wales for low and medium risk offenders. On 5 December 2014, contracts were awarded to the successful bidders for the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies. You will also be aware that transition to the new probation structures took place on 1 June 2014 and the National Probation Service and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies are now live and supervising offenders within the new structures. The 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies remain in public ownership until the transition process is completed.

The item on the ‘Today’ programme to which you referred in your email implied that our reforms were rushed, untested, unpiloted, and are putting the public at risk. That is not the case. Public protection remains a key priority, and our crucial reforms to probation are being rolled-out in a sensible way, with testing at every stage. Thorough, externally assured business-and-systems-readiness testing was conducted to review key activities that had to be completed prior to transition on 1 June. Evidence from the testing demonstrated that the business was ready to make the transition. We have also conducted testing at each stage as we moved towards contract award.

During the ‘Today’ programme item, the Minister also referred to the fact that we have been piloting a number of different approaches to Payment by Results (PbR) across Government and have gained valuable learning from these. At HMP Peterborough, for example, the short sentenced offenders who received through-the-gate support on release - as part of an innovative PbR Social Impact Bond pilot - are less likely to reoffend than those outside the scheme. A second PbR pilot operating out of HMP Doncaster has also shown marked falls in reoffending. The lessons we have drawn from implementing our pilots, together with the experience of other departments in using Payment by Results, have informed the design and commission of robust contracts which drive the right behaviours and generate value for money.

Finally, I would like to thank you for your invitation to the Minister to attend a meeting
of Greater London Napo. Can I suggest that if Napo Greater London branch would
like to discuss these reforms and their concerns further they approach the London
Community Rehabilitation Company. 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hubbard
Transforming Rehabilitation Programme

Guest Blog 14

Hello Chris,

I don't know where to start. Over recent months you will be aware that there have been many, many comments about you, but how many have been written TO you? This is a highly sensitive subject, causing much anger, pain, frustration and disbelief, with words which I won't repeat, to describe you.

But you are a human being, in a long (presumably) strong marriage, and 2 young adult children. I have not read of any scandals involving you, in contrast to the accusations and confirmed revelations of the despicable behaviour of many politicians (and other noted people). You are an intelligent well-educated and highly qualified man, with a deeper side, having written an eclectic mix of books including a review of waterways. Who would have thought that this man, who puts his foot in it every time he opens his mouth, could show such sensitivity.

So today I am not calling you psychotic, dangerous etc etc, I am appealing to that sensitive, 'normal' side, who I presume loves and has protected his family, like the rest of us (and I genuinely am not being sarcastic, I am respecting the private man.)

I am a retired Probation Officer, qualifying with a DIPSW and Masters degree at the age of 48, after a history of working with young people, in the public sector, both part-time and full time, during which time I had also gained a relevant community and youth diploma at 44 after 2 years at Poly. Through my work I gained experience of every social problem, homelessness, fractured families, domestic violence, unemployment, abuse, self abuse, isolation, mental health, drugs, alcohol, sex offending, and personal issues of race, gender, sexuality, literacy skills, disabilities and confidence issues. I have worked in offices, community organisations and walked the streets, working with damaged families and seeking out disaffected youth. In those days, life experience was essential. I now understand you can be a trainee at 18. Surely that must be wrong? Even under 25 is still a bit unnerving, having to challenge streetwise, damaged, nothing-to-lose offenders.

Throughout a loving upbringing, I had been taught respect and understanding of other people, and these are the qualities essential in Probation. Staff need to have the skills to interact with and to understand clients/offenders/service users issues, and gain their trust where there may have previously only been indifference, rejection, intolerance or arrogance. And vitally, give those people TIME to trust you and open up to you. People aren't born criminals; not all rejected people go on to hate or steal or misuse substances, they somehow muddle through, no doubt with support somewhere, but for some, it is just too despairing a battle. And they break the law, out of frustration, hunger, isolation, anger, despair, rejection, fear, and resentment. 

The majority of people I supervised had been abused or neglected/rejected in their childhood, had gone in and out of care, to be abused again - many children's homes were harsh, threatening places where abuse was rife. I have cried with offenders who have broken down, and opened up to me, some big 'tough' even high-risk, middle-aged men, (who have threatened me with unspeakable things and later apologised) after a life of silence or rebuke from social workers for being naughty and telling lies. When it does come out, it is in a torrent of exorcism, but likely to be quickly hidden again if the PO goes too fast in this hallelujah moment.

Chris, that damages people permanently, and often results in crime sooner or later. For people to heal, they need other people to understand, and to be able to point the way. And there needs to be time to demonstrate understanding, and facilities to support them, something which is becoming harder and harder in this current political climate. What is certain, is that this cannot be achieved by just dealing with the crime and not the person, by looking at the offence, with no background knowledge or means of accessing it, by brief court reports, or ticky lists, or nothing at all, just the defendant, with judges and magistrates second guessing what the person has experienced before, what they have DONE before, with no guidance on what levels of support or restraint they need to impose. If a person is just shoved through a conveyor belt process, then quickly ticked out at the end, that is only bottling up the CAUSES, with a likelihood of going through the revolving doors again and again.

You have said that yourself, with your oft-repeated signature quote about the under 12 month supervision - they need to be supported during and at the end of their sentence, and on licence. Why then, are you removing or at best limiting, the quality of support AND control of offenders on community supervision?

- which brings me on to other issues, which confuses and to be honest, angers me. -

1) Why do you keep repeating a mantra of the under 12 months supervision being the reason behind this demolition of the Probation Service, when the Service has done this before? In my time we would offer them voluntary supervision for 12 months, and we would write to them at the end of their Order, inviting them to call in if they had a problem, in the early days of readjusting without support. We would also frequently go to the prison to pick up higher risk or more vulnerable offenders, having ensured they had accommodation, or have found accommodation for them. 

Then in the recent past, a meeting of CEOs offered to NOMS the facility to supervise that group of offenders, in the awareness of the likelihood of reoffending (the immediate period after the end of custody or supervision for some, was always regarded as a potentially risky period, after losing a line of support.) Indeed some Trusts had already successfully run trials. But the CEO's were told that it would not be proceeded with, without explanation. I can remember the topic of discussion before I retired was the possibility that we would be supervising this group in the near future (then), and we speculated on additional staff being recruited.

2) Secondly, why do you insist that crime is staying stubbornly high, when even NOMS records in 2013 revealed that it has been steadily dropping in 10 of the 15 Trusts, since 2010, with some areas, particularly in the North East and London, 'achieving better than expected results'? This is what the public are being told, with no one in the system appearing to contradict you. And did you know that the National Probation Service were the first ever public organisation to be give the British Quality Foundation's award for excellence?

3) Why have you said this transformation will be cheaper than retaining the status quo when hundred of millions of pounds has already been spent, with much much more still to come?

4) Why are you saying that NAPO is misleading and that most staff are happy and the reforms are 'bedding in well' and teams are making 'good progress', when the reality is spectacularly different? Many people are afraid to speak out, for fear of serious repercussions; some are tucking their heads in, ignoring the rumbling earthquake; staff in NPS have been warned not to speak out, and some CRCs too, and some senior managers are - dare I say - giving false impressions, understandably I suppose, protecting their own livelihood and salaries.

I know it is not like that. I have friends who are still working there, and I have been receiving emails from a number of colleagues. detailing the problems they are enduring on a daily basis. They are not lying, they are too distressed to lie. They are exhausted, with sickeningly faulty IT systems, inability to find info, unmanageably high case loads, systems which take hours to complete and are not worth the paper (computer) they are written on, and most importantly, potentially dangerous offenders passing unnoticed or 'un-assessed', domestic violence cases identified as low or medium risk, when this group is a simmering volcano (living with the victim and then RETURNED to the victim by the courts, sometimes because of the naivety of the unqualified, inexperienced, temporary officer in the court who has not had training on such a high risk group), newly released prisoners being sent to wrong address (into an exclusion zone where the victim lived in one case); indeed I could go on and on and on - those few words are the tip of the iceberg. 

I am sure you, or a sifting MoJ staff member, have been reading the Probation Blog. If so, you must wonder are all these people, nationwide, telling lies? Are all these people, who have loved their job as a vocation, telling lies? Are those people who have placed themselves at risk by revealing their identity by oath for the purpose of the JR also lying? Are all those people who have left with a broken heart - up to top management - also lying? Are the handful of senior managers who have risked putting their name to a comment also lying?

5) And on a related subject - do you honestly believe that everyone who states that prisons have become dangerous places is lying? Is Nick Hardwick lying? Are the governors lying (read between the lines)? What is the reason then for the high increased percentage of violence and deaths in prison? Why did a jury acquit 3 inmates for their protest? Why are people being banged up for 19 hours a day in crowded cells? I can remember regularly visiting prisons where there was generally a busy but contented atmosphere, with unproblematic prisoners moving around with no atmosphere of fear. Why is it recorded that all this has changed since June this year?

6) Where have the quoted 500 new recruits been placed, when people are still struggling with staff shortages, either left or on long term sick? Long term sick used to be a rarity when I was there, until 2011, not in the Dark Ages, which we rapidly appear to be returning to.

7) Why did you allow the split between the 70/30% staff to be managed in such a slap-dash unsafe way? 2 hats - take one name out and into that heap and 2 names into that heap, etc; sending some expertise and specialisms to CRCs and placing inexperienced PSO's (not all inexperienced I will grant, I have thoroughly experienced friends working in CRC's) into a role which gives them an entire case load of high riskers, a very stressful role for anyone. And I hear that some specialisms eg SOTP officers, (which I used to do, once a week, alongside my team PO role, after having extensive training) are struggling to operate, having lost their specialist worker to CRC.

8) And why assume ALL DV offenders are low/medium risk when this group are the most difficult to define? They usually live with their victim - AND children, who are the most vulnerable of all. The offender often has psychological issues, or drug/alcohol ones, which can turn a loved one into a monster in a wink, with the victim fearing the perpetrator but always believing his cries that he is sorry and will change. DV perpetrators are phenomenal deniers, sometimes, I believe, to themselves, which makes it harder to rehabilitate, like sex offenders. Again, it takes specialist training to work with such cases. Harking back to my early days in the 90's , every office used to have a trained person (which was me in my office at one time) who would sit in with the PSR writer when interviewing. There would always be 2 interviews. This was also the case with sex offenders, and the specialist worker would also produce a report. Now these same people are being sentenced with NO report or a ticky list. Do you honestly think this is ideal, or even safe?

It surprises me that DV offenders have a blanket assessment of low/medium risk, at a time when the government is paying more attention to the crime, (quote from Vera Baird - Police and Crime Commissioner - 'it is the most heinous of crimes') Do you not think that more attention should be given to this group?

9) Magistrates have always depended on the court probation officer for their knowledge and experience - a neighbour of mine is a long serving Magistrate who tells me how much they were valued for their analyses, background info and recommendations.

10) Can you imagine - have you seen it on the Probation Blog? - the technicality of re-arranging the offices, leaving one office, in many areas, with only high risk cases reporting? These offices have already been identified as the 'nonces and nutters office' around the country, with risk of confrontation. In the past no one knew what others had been convicted of, within the office anyway. Do you think this is safe? And some offenders are having to travel many more miles, to some offices in rural areas, which have only one officer and one admin. Again, do you think this is safe? And this leaves some offices overcrowded and some half empty, but unable to be used by CRC, as it belongs to NPS. Is this not bizarre? And travelling further afield to report, makes it more awkward to get there on time, if at all. Will they be at risk of breach if they arrive late? Will bus fares be paid - twice as much as before for the longer journey? I could go on.

11) I must also ask why, when people are posing questions at you, or informing you of problems, you either deny it, which is puzzling as there is clearly evidence to uphold these declarations. Or you will thank staff for doing so well, (when you must know that they are really hanging on by their finger tips, or have given up and left the Service, in tears over the death of a job they had loved for years) and then you say how everything has been improved, when it hasn't. Could you please explain? Are you being given the wrong information? The very day Parliament was told that the issues of N-Delius have been resolved, and people in CRC can now access info from NPS, I read a comment on the blog that attempts to gain info on 3 separate cases which were likely being re-assessed as high risk, were futile. I know that staff are supposed to be able to access info on N-Delius from admin staff, but is that really fair, given that admin staff have always been driven hard and overworked?

I implore you to think again about selling off the Probation Service to huge multi-nationals, employing staff who will have had little experience of such work. New graduates in NPS will be very young with little experience of understanding disaffected, damaged and dangerous criminals, yet will be making decisions on their future, with no idea of the implications for public and victim safety.

Probation has no issue with partnerships - it has worked alongside the police, voluntary organisations and educational systems, but it has retained control of sentencing and supervision. I ask you not to put many many lives at risk, nationwide, including offenders and staff and again I will say it - the children of victims and offenders, the most distressing issue, at a time when the government is reducing support systems and voluntary and charitable organisations.

I have just read that you have made the decision to go ahead with the sale - please at least put that on hold, until you hear what the High Court has to say. The Probation Service and its employees, and service users and the general public are at least owed that.

Your plan could still work, with a significant overhaul of partnerships, with more authority remaining in the public sector.

I could say more but I think I have said enough. Sadly I think it is all too late, but I still send this, with respect and with hope, and maybe, just maybe, you might accept that other ideas might just be better. You will gain much more respect if you decide to take a more moderate step.

Mgt Locklan

Omnishambles Update 82

A bumper edition that begins with news of the recent update to Delius over the weekend:-

Great day today, full of uselessness. Delius on and off all day. Putting entries on for them to disappear. Then lost 2 hours work on an SDR on OASys, spent half hour on the phone to Shared Services call centre who logged the call to try and retrieve. Basically resigned myself to writing it again. "Did you save it?" she said. Erm, no but it was the finishing touches, putting it altogether. "Oh I would recommend you save the work at least every half hour." Oh, OK, no shit Sherlock, bit late now no? Can I continue or will I lose the work again? "Erm, I work in a call centre and not qualified to be able to tell you if it's Ok to continue on OASys. You should be OK though." What makes you think that then. "Erm, dunno really!!" I am on nearly 200 per cent. Like I have time for this shit!! NPS

This from Durham Tees Valley CRC gives you an idea of the chaos:-

Hi, 

Following the Delius upgrade this weekend we have been given a list of issues that have occurred.  These issues will be resolved in a further upgrade due in January.  If you should encounter any of these issues there is a workaround document in the SRM in HQ/TIM/Delius that assists - Delius TS2 Workarounds - 

• The print button on the Office Contact Diary does not work. It is therefore not possible to use that print button to produce a paper copy of the lists of offenders due into the office on a given day.
• When checking the Next Appointment details for an offender using the Offender Enquiry screen, any appointments occurring on the same day as the search is being made are not included.  Appointments for the next day and onwards are included.
• When attempting to bulk transfer a set of requirements or licence conditions,  the process fails when there are more than 10 requirements or licence conditions available to transfer.
• When working with the new ‘Next Appointment’ functionality it is not always clear when the next appointment against a given order or component actually is.
• The application displays error messages when terminating the last item that is giving you access to an offender record, as anything other than Offender Manager.
• The Team and Officer fields are mandatory in the Pending Transfers diary.This means that it is no longer possible to do a single search for the records being transferred into a Provider.This carries with it the risk that the allocation of an offender, or of work associated with an offender, may be missed.
• Transfers of licence conditions are remaining active when the Licence Condition is terminated by a recall action.
• NSI Caseload Screen not filtering by "Level". NSIs can be created at either offender or event level. The caseload diary screen always returns all NSI whether the filter is set to show All or Event Or Offender.
• When creating a new NSI, if setting the status time to an earlier time, the screen will sometimes not save and instead change the status time to the current time.

If there are any other issues with new Delius please call the Helpdesk. Thanks.

The Chief Inspector has finally spoken and as Ian Dunt reports on the politics.co.uk website, things don't look too good just days away from the contracts being signed:-

Probation privatisation looks to be as big a disaster as we thought it was

When Chris Grayling announced the sell-off of probation services, he was told it was unnecessary, dangerous and needlessly complex.

Grayling ignored the criticism and pressed ahead regardless, but ramped up the timetable so that he could get the contracts signed before the general election and prevent any future Labour government from reversing it. Today we got an initial assessment of how that process is going by Paul McDowell, the chief inspector of probation, and it appears to validate the concerns of those who had warned the justice secretary off the idea.

We need to have some caution over McDowell's reports. His wife is the deputy managing director of a private justice company which runs some UK probation services. Grayling has repeatedly defended that arrangement and there is no evidence whatsoever that McDowell would let it affect him. But it would be absurd for us to ever allow a report to proceed without mentioning this fact.

In any sane world it would be considered untenable and something would have to be done – not because there is evidence of wrongdoing, but because these reports should be above the sorts of questions we now have raise when they are released. But we do not live in that world and anyway, it's worth observing that, while it is tempered, McDowell's report is actually very critical.

Here's how Grayling broke up the probation service. The existing national body was left in charge of high risk offenders. Low-and-medium risk offenders were the responsibility of 35 probation trusts, which were really companies in public ownership until the formal sell-off. Staff were reassigned, sometimes literally by having their names picked out of a hat. When we say the process was chaotic and rushed, we understate things.

The result was predictable. "Splitting one organisation into two separate organisations had created process, communication and information-sharing challenges that did not previously exist," the inspector said, rather understatedly. "Many of those issues will remain a challenge for some time to come and need close attention."

What does this mean? The point where probation meets the courts is in a state of disarray, or as the inspector puts it, there are "significant challenges". The lack of staff at the national service, for high-risk offenders, is having "a detrimental impact on the delivery of some of the services". Given the seriousness of these offenders, this is very dangerous. Probation union Napo has already warned that one murder could have been avoided if not for the reforms.

Communication between the national body and the new organisations is falling apart. This is particularly problematic because of the risk categories. Risk is dynamic. It does not stay the same. Say you have a violent offender who was long ago charged with domestic abuse. He is currently low or medium risk. But then reports come in that he started drinking again and neighbours report loud arguments in their house. He is now high risk. It’s proper communication channels which allow us to stop that sort of violence. The idea he moves to another organisation and probation officer when these reports come in needlessly complicates things.

The IT infrastructure, as everyone predicted, is in trouble, or, as the inspector puts it, a "challenge". He adds: "The lack of integration of IT systems was frustrating." Probation workers frequently cite difficulties accessing previous information about offenders.

Probation workers are overloaded with work leaving "significant gaps, especially in court". Amusingly, this is described with the words: "Matching of staff resources to the workload has been challenging". Leadership has also been lacking and so has internal communication. But McDowell doesn't water down his criticism for the unseemly haste with which the sell-off was conducted. He says:

"The speed of this implementation has in itself caused operational problems that could have been avoided or mitigated. We sometimes found that new processes were being communicated by email to staff for implementation the next day, with little or no time for training or instruction. It is important to recognise the impact that this has had on staff morale, and potentially on the efficiency of the service they were providing."

What's really irritating is that the speed was political. It was done this way to prevent Labour reversing it. In probation, errors cost lives. The understated nature of the report prevents it coming across as too damning. But for a justice secretary to have approached this task with anything other than supreme delicacy is deeply concerning. We’ve yet to see if Grayling's reforms will be as bad as the unions have suggested. But the early indicators do not look good.

Napo have prepared a briefing paper in readiness for today's Justice Questions in the House of Commons:- 

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) Report Published 15^th December 2014 – Transforming Rehabilitation, Early Implementation.

A Parliamentary briefing from Napo, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Probation and Family Court Staff

                                                                

Today’s report published by HMIP raises a number of significant concerns in relation to the implementation of the Governments reforms of the Probation Service. The contracts for the new probation providers are due to be signed on Thursday 18^th December 2014 with a view to the contracts being mobilised in February 2015. However, the report contains 68 recommendations which Napo believes should be acted on, resolved and evidenced to be working prior to any contracts being signed by preferred bidders. In his foreword the Chief Inspector says:

“there remains significant challenges in getting court end processes working as they should”

“lack of staff in some areas of the National Probation Service was having a detrimental impact on the delivery of some services being provided.”

The interface between the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Companies will continue to cause challenges that need to be addressed.”

“IT continues to provide a predictable challenge….There is a risk that increased bureaucracy could stifle future innovation, so the issues raised by staff about IT requires serious attention.”

“The speed of the implementation has in itself caused operational problems that could have been avoided.”

“There is no doubt at all that there remains much more to do.”

The 68 recommendations in the report include:

12. The National Probation Service (NPS) senior managers should make arrangements for responses from Police domestic abuse units and children’s services to be received on the day in cases where an oral report (for the Court) is prepared.

A much greater number of offenders are being sentenced at Court using oral reports. Whilst this allows for speedy justice, without the necessary assessments being carried out with the above services there is a real risk that child protection issues and domestic violence concerns will go missed. Cases could be inappropriately allocated to the wrong organisation or grade of staff and not be properly managed during their sentence leading to a direct risk to the public.

15. National Probation Service managers should ensure that Offender Assessment System Risk of Serious Harm screenings are completed routinely at the report stage before any assignment of the case.

This is vital to highlighting risk of harm issues and failing to do so could lead to cases being allocated to the wrong organisation and risk issues to victims and children being missed.

18. The National Offender Management Service should ensure that a re-evaluation of the resources available to the National Probation Service to complete the new workload requirements should be urgently undertaken, particularly in relation to work in courts. (para 1.3, 1.9, 1.21, 2.11)

Napo has continually raised its concerns regarding staff shortages and that the workload in the National Probation Service is much higher than originally planned for. A lack of resources has led to high workloads, increased sickness and low staff morale.

41. Home visits should be completed by all Community Rehabilitation Company offender managers in cases where there are concerns about domestic abuse and/or safeguarding children. (para 3.23)

It is of concern that home visits had only taken place for 5 out of 35 cases where there were domestic violence or safeguarding issues. The report does not offer an explanation of for this but Napo’s own intelligence suggests that it is as a result of staff shortages and cases being allocated to inexperienced or unqualified staff.

46. Community Rehabilitation Company chief executives should clarify what type of case is appropriate for probation service officers (less qualified staff) to manage. (para 3.30)

There is increasing evidence from our members that probation service officers (PSO’s) are being allocated complex cases that are above and beyond their training and experience. This will lead to the de-professionalising of the service and cases not being safely managed in the community. This recommendation should be in place prior to any contracts being signed.

52. Community Rehabilitation Company chief executives should ensure full implementation of workload monitoring (para 3.29)

As yet there is no agreed workload management tool for either the NPS or the CRC’s.

56. National Probation Service (NPS) managers should ensure that home visits are taking place where appropriate, when the offender is classified high risk of serious harm, where there is a history of sexual offences or domestic abuse or where there are child protection concerns. (para 4.8)

This is not happening in the majority of cases looked at by the Inspectorate. Napo believes this is due to high workloads as a result of staff shortages and increased bureaucracy that has been introduced to the system. Home visits are vital for risk management and effective multi agency working.

58. The NPS should undertake a full review of the numbers and proportion of probation officers, probation service officers and administrative staff it employs so that all tasks can be completed efficiently. (para 4.16)

There is a clear disparity across the country of the role of PSO’s in the NPS. The inspectorate had reservations about the types of cases some PSO’s were being expected to manage in some areas. It was also identified that there may be too many PSO’s in the NPS and the original assignment process had not been effective.

59. The National Offender Management Service should review the roles and responsibilities of PSO’s and the training required to support them in their work and professional development.

Napo would urge all parliamentarians to read the report in full. It is of great concern that such a large number of issues remain unresolved yet the Justice Secretary still intends to sign 10 year contracts this week. We believe he should be held to account for this decision, provide evidence to the House and to the preferred bidders on why he believes it is safe to proceed to contract singing and how he intends to implement the recommendations before February 2015.

As a result of Napo’s legal challenge which concluded last week, further evidence from the Ministry of Justice was provided to us that causes further concern. However, due a confidentiality order issued by the Court, Napo is unable to share this information. It is in our view, a concern that the Justice Secretary continues to hide evidence that we believe should be in the public domain. It should be made available to preferred bidders prior to contracts being signed and should also be made available to the House so that he can be held to account for his actions.

Questions you may wish to ask:

1. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that all of the key recommendations in the HMIP report have either been implanted or at least will be prior to contracts being signed on 18th December?

2. If not what assurances can he give the House that contracts will be ready to be mobilised in February 2015?

3. Will the Secretary of State provide the evidence that Napo reference to the House for full parliamentary scrutiny?

4. Given the coalition said that they would not proceed to the signing of contracts if the HMIP raised any concerns, can the Justice Secretary now explain why he is proceeding when a significant issues have come to light?

5. Why does the Justice Secretary not postpone the signing of contracts until all of these recommendations are in place?

And finally, here is the letter Napo has sent to all the bidders:-

Dear .........,

1. I wrote to you on 11 December 2014 seeking to arrange a meeting or telephone conference to discuss what systems you will have in place to ensure the safety of our members and the public after you take over operation of the CRC(s) you are buying on 1 February 2015. 

2. As I indicated last week, Napo are the trade union and professional association representing the majority of trade union members within the Probation service. As such, we expect to engage positively with CRC owners through the agreed negotiating structures, with a view to protecting and promoting the pay, terms and conditions of the staff whom we represent.

3. I am sure that you will also appreciate that we have a wealth of professional knowledge and experience that we would expect to draw upon to protect our members (e.g workloads as per paragraph  below, but it is also knowledge and experience from which you as prospective purchasers could benefit from in terms of hearing things that have perhaps been hidden from you by the MoJ. I have outlined these issues below as we believe we are bound to advise you of them.

4. We want to ensure that we work with you on these issues now, before the transfer takes place, so that you have enough time to address the issues which cause us concern.

5. We are writing now to explain in more detail the nature of the issues which concern us. We would therefore welcome an early opportunity to discuss these with you.  We would like to ensure that you have them at the forefront of your mind as you plan how you propose to operate. Unless you have been made privy to this information by the Secretary of State we want to make sure that before you sign the terms of contracts, you have enough information about the risks which both we and the Secretary of State (separately) have identified in the system as it currently operates.   We want you to understand the systemic risks you are taking on, and to ensure that, before you sign contracts to take over responsibility for those risks, you are satisfied that you have adequate resources to put in place the measures to address them.

6. We want to negotiate with you so as to ensure that, after transfer, there are adequate management instructions and protocols in place to ensure that our members are not asked to work in ways which expose them to serious risks of avoidable harm to their physical or mental health.  (You will be aware that this is the common law duty which employers have to ensure workers’ safety).

7. We think it only fair to explain to you the background to this letter and to this voicing of concern.  As you may well be aware, Napo has been in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Justice over a number of months expressing concern that aspects of the new structure of the probation service may expose staff, the public and offenders to unnecessary risks of harm. Napo sought the engagement which we have traditionally enjoyed with NOMS over such issues. We repeatedly asked to be allowed to see the Secretary of State’s safety testing and assurance results so that we could engage with him on the substance of our safety concerns in a meaningful and informed way. Unfortunately, despite numerous documented requests over the summer and autumn, Napo was not allowed access to the Ministry of Justice’s safety testing information (not even on a confidential basis). This left us in a situation where we could not provide input informed by the safety testing results as to how to solve some of the problems which were clearly emerging on the ground.  

8. During that time, more and more examples emerged of cases in which probation staff were asked to do jobs for which they were not equipped, or to take on too many cases as a result of serious staff shortages and rising sickness levels, or in which CRC staff were asked to meet clients without proper computer access to safety records.  In some cases, these problems had resulted in serious physical or sexual assault or psychological breakdown.  Examples include a member of CRC probation staff seriously sexually assaulted after she was unable to obtain timely access to risk records which would have warned her not to see that offender alone, and two documented cases of murder after inadequately trained and overworked probation support staff were asked to take on inappropriate serious cases.

9. Napo was worried, on the basis of feedback from its members, that these risks were not being properly recognised or addressed by the Ministry of Justice in its secret safety testing procedures. On 20 October 2014, we sent the Secretary of State witness statements from our members giving examples of these concerns. Copies of these example cases can be made available if you would like to see them.

10.   Our members are very seriously worried that after ‘dual access’ to computer systems is switched off on handover of CRC shares, CRC staff will not have adequate and timely access to sufficient risk management information to enable them to work safely; that there is insufficient clarity in arrangements for appropriate and timely transfer of cases between the NPS and the CRCs and the safety consequences of transfer in these circumstances in the context of very serious nation-wide, endemic shortages of suitably qualified and experienced staff and extraordinary rates of stress-related absence.

11.   The Secretary of State said that transfer would not take place until he believed it was safe to do so, but was not prepared to explain to us or our members how these safety issues would be addressed and why we should be reassured that he would have taken steps to make sure that these problems were solved so that the system was safe.    We find this odd; if there are obvious answers to how our safety concerns can be addressed, we do not understand what is stopping the Secretary of State from saying so publicly.  We remain gravely concerned that this is because in practice these safety issues cannot be resolved by the intended date of transfer on 1 February 2015, at least without input of more resources than are currently being assigned to deal with them.

12.  Unfortunately, it was not possible to get the Secretary of State to discuss these things with us in a sensible and open way. So, on 6 November 2014, Napo made an application for judicial review in which we asked:

a) that the Secretary of State be forced to disclose his safety testing evidence;

and

b) if he concluded it was safe to sell the CRCs, to give reasons and enable Napo to make informed representations.

13.  We also argued that (on the basis of the evidence we had seen to that date, and the evidence from our own members), there were insufficient safeguards to ensure that there would not be unacceptable risks of serious physical or psychological harm, even if the system was operated as it was intended.  We asked the Court to make a declaration about that, and for an order that the Secretary of State should not sell the CRCs until ‘the avoidable harm is obviated’.

14.   Even when we were trying to run an argument about the safety risks inherent in the system if adequate measures were not taken to recognise and address them, the Secretary of State resisted giving Napo any of the results of his safety testing.  His argument – according to his written submission to the Court - was that there were “strong commercial reasons why the disclosure of [the safety testing documents] should not take place”.  He said that “Such disclosure would disrupt the ongoing procurement process and could derail negotiations”.  

15.  Napo remains unclear as to why tests into the safety of the operation of the publicly owned NPS and CRCs should be liable to disrupt the procurement process.   In Napo’s view, there is a strong public interest in CRCs knowing the full particulars of the safety risks which the Secretary of State’s safety testing has identified before they sign contracts agreeing to take on those operations and those risks.  We imagine that you would want to assure yourself and your shareholders that you have all the information you need about risk liability before contracts are signed.

16.  On 26 November 2014, the High Court ordered the Secretary of State to disclose his safety test results to Napo, but not more widely. As a result of that Order, the Secretary of State disclosed part of that safety information to Napo on 28 November 2014 and part on 4 December, the same day as he announced his decision to sell the shares CRCs to preferred bidders such as yourselves.  

17.  On 1 December 2014, we made detailed 18-page submissions to the Secretary of State about our concerns in the light of those results, highlighting where we considered they were borne out by the results of the Secretary of State’s tests and making detailed reference to them.

18.  Unfortunately, we are not at liberty to share that analysis with you, because it was based on documents and specific regional issues referred to in them which we are required to keep confidential.   Many of the documents which the Secretary of State disclosed were put into a confidentiality ring, and insofar as that confidentiality ring still stands, Napo is not in a position to discuss the content of them with any third party.  The fact of the confidentiality ring is not itself confidential, and we put you on notice that the Ministry of Justice may hold safety-testing information relevant to your CRC which has not been disclosed before sale.

19. We think that on the basis of his safety tests (some but not all of which have now been put in the public domain), the Secretary of State now recognises the systemic safety problems which Napo has identified over many months.  Napo believes that the problems about access to risk assessment information when dual access is switched off; the problems about CRCs being required to keep control of serious cases because the NPS refuses to take them on; and the problems of very serious short staffing have not gone away.

20.  Napo withdrew its application for judicial review because it now had the MOJ safety testing evidence, had made its submissions on it to the Secretary of State, and was satisfied that if the NPS and CRCs could put in place the measures referred to in the Secretary of State’s evidence of 4 December 2014 in time for handover and if the system operated as he said it would, those measures would constitute proportionate steps to recognize and obviate unacceptable risks of serious physical and psychological harm. That addressed Napo’s legal arguments about the safety of the ‘system’ operated as the Secretary of State intends will be the case.

21.   However, Napo continues to doubt that the NPS and the CRCs can in practice put in place the Secretary of State’s intended solutions to these problems in time for handover on 1 February 2015.  We fear that more people are going to get hurt as a result of inadequate computer information, inadequate training and serious shortages of staff able to do the increased amounts of work generated by Transforming Rehabilitation, even before the provisions of the Offender Management Act 2014 are brought into force.

22.   We want to take these concerns forward with the NPS regions and CRC management. Napo drew up a document of the problems which it had identified, what the Secretary of State’s safety testing evidence said in relation to each such issue, and what the Ministry of Justice evidence had said would be done about it before CRC handover. We think that this would provide transparency about what the MOJ says can and will be achieved before 1 February 2014.  We would like to share this list of steps with CRCs so that they can assure us if these things are achievable and so that we can spend the next three months working with you to identify working methods and instructions which will ensure that the intended steps are in fact implemented in time. There are considerable resource questions associated with this.

23.   However, our list of ‘steps’ is based on information which the Secretary of State disclosed to Napo for the purposes of the court proceedings.  We have applied for disclosure so that we could have shared it with you. We needed the Secretary of State’s or the Court’s permission to use that information to explain what the Secretary of State has said can and will be done. However, this was refused.

24.  The Secretary of State refused to let us use that information publicly, because he is apparently unhappy with the way we have expressed it, and last week the Court declined to order him to do so.  It said that the Secretary of State and Napo should be able to agree a list of information which could be shared.   We will seek such agreement, but today the Secretary of State has said he would need seven days to consider any such list from Napo.

25.   We think it is urgent that the CRCs know what safety concerns the Secretary of State’s safety tests have identified as continuing to arise.   We think it is important for CRC Chief Executives to know, before they take on those responsibilities, if they are one of the areas where particular safety concerns arise.  We think that having that information in the public domain would help us in working with you to ensure our members’ safety in the face of the specific issues that we know exist.    It is public knowledge that Napo opposed the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda, but if the CRCs are to move into private ownership, we think it is of vital importance that we can work with CRC management to address safety questions on the basis of open discussion in full knowledge of all the facts.

26.   Unfortunately, as a result of the Court order, that is not possible.  However, we attach to this letter a document which goes as far as we can in setting out what our safety concerns are, and (so far as we can do so from documents which are in the public domain) what the Secretary of State has said he will do about it.   If you want to know about these matters in more detail, or about whether any specific  information is available about specific risks arising in your region, we suggest you may wish to seek further details directly from the Ministry of Justice.

27.  In the meantime, we would welcome an opportunity to meet you to discuss how we can work together to, amongst other things:

a) ensure adequate access to risk information on relevant computer systems, and instructions to our members as to what to do in cases  where such information is not available;

b) identify reasonable instructions to our members for risk escalation;

c) create reasonable protocols for identifying acceptable work loads and instructions to our members for what to do if faced with workloads beyond their competence or ability to process within time available.

Yours sincerely,

IAN LAWRENCE

General Secretary

Latest From Napo 53

The following e-mail was sent to all Napo members late this afternoon:-

Since the JR costs hearing held last Friday, Napo has been in consultation with our lawyers to explore a potential appeal. Whilst we were not given permission for an appeal on Friday against the costs order, it is the refusal that we are considering appealing against. The Officers group will look at this in more detail later this week.

Outcome of the costs hearing:

The Court ruled that the MOJ was allowed to keep its evidence secret under a confidentiality order imposed by the Court at the disclosure hearing. This has resulted in Napo writing a comprehensive briefing to bidders outlining Napo's analysis of the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Court. A copy of the letter to bidders can be found on the Napo website: https://www.napo.org.uk/news/napo-has-written-bidders-comprehensive-briefing

The Courts found Napo liable for some of the MOJ costs but found the MOJ liable for our costs in relation to the disclosure hearing. Full details of the costs have yet to be finalised by the Court and we will, of course update you as soon as we can.

Today also saw the publication of the HMIP report ‘Transforming Rehabilitation – Early Implementation’:

Napo provided MP's with a briefing on the report in time for Justice Questions to be held tomorrow morning. The briefing can be found on the Napo website https://www.napo.org.uk/reports You will find a link to the full report at the end of the briefing. Branch representatives meet in London this Thursday and more information will be issued about developments as soon as we are able.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary, and the Napo Officers Group


And here is the latest blog from the Napo General Secretary:-

Napo not down and not out even if others would wish it to be so

Since last weeks news about the discontinuance of the Judicial Review application we have been busy preparing for the costs hearing that took place on Friday, and getting out as much information to you as we have been able to, notwithstanding the confidentiality restrictions. Another mail out is on its way this evening putting some of the outcomes in context.

You will know that we have organised a meeting of Branch Chairs which will take place this Thursday, and in addition have written to NEC members under confidential legal privilege to spell out the facts behind what happened regarding JR and why it happened and why the Officers were unanimous that we had exhausted our available options. We will be releasing more information as we have promised, once we have had that discussion with Branch representatives. Meanwhile, I wanted to say that nobody underestimates the fact that the decision has caused massive disappointment. We share it too. Many members have made a huge emotional investment in the hope that we could use the legal process as a means of saving Grayling from his own recklessness, but in order to rubbish his evidence we firstly had to secure it and then consider what the judges would make of it on the extremely limited parameters that were open to the Court.

We now know why Grayling has refused to release all his assurance tests up to now, and why he is still terrified that the CRC bidders might actually find out that he acknowledges there were, and are, major concerns about the safety of what they are being asked to buy. Todays report from HMI Probation:

https://www.napo.org.uk/sites/default/files/BRF46-14%20-%20HMIP%20report...

makes it clear that while he does not believe there are safety considerations worthy of mention, (I will leave it to others to speculate on why not against the backdrop of the conflict of interest concerns publicised widely elsewhere) there are some 68 recommendations that need to be acted upon, and as you would expect we have sent in a briefing and some key questions to Parliamentarians this afternoon.

Message to the bidders

I have just signed off a letter (the second within a few days) and appendix which tells the would be owners of the CRC's that even though we are prohibited from showing them Graylings evidence it kind of looks like this.

Here is the link:

https://www.napo.org.uk/news/napo-has-written-bidders-comprehensive-brie...

because its too long to reproduce, but I hope it finds some resonance with them as well as our members. Oh and by the way, they and you will be interested to know that Napo and Unison have formally registered a National Pay dispute at this afternoons meeting of the National Negotiating Council. More about this soon.

Message to the gloaters

The blatantly aggressive communique from Mark Head and Colin Allars about last Friday's costs hearing that some CRC Chiefs have reproduced, presumably as a means of trying to ignite internal strife among Napo members, is patently inaccurate in terms of the potential for an appeal by Napo against the costs decision. It also prompts a question to those now trying to stick in the metaphorical knife: where were you when the chips were down, when our members took industrial action, when they were out there campaigning to alert the public to the recklessness of the TR programme and when our members needed you to speak up about the issues that they have been fighting over for the last 18 months?

Nowhere, is the answer.

While We Wait

While we wait to hear what HM Chief Inspector of Probation thinks about the TR omnishambles, here's a couple of snippets to keep us going. First, Private Eye:-

And something from 'Prison Consultants', whoever they are:-

This week, 11 December to be exact, Lord Faulks answered a written question from Lord Browne of Belmont. Lord Browne wanted to know how much it cost the Government, on average, to incarcerate a prisoner between 2011 and 2014. Back came the answer: there has been a reduction of 17% in the overall average cost per prisoner between 2011 and 2014. The average cost at the moment is in the region of £26,000 per prisoner.

That’s good news for the French company Sodexo. It runs five UK prisons at a cost to the taxpayer of £35,000 per prisoner. A tidy profit, to be sure.
But here’s the rub. Sodexo is also in charge of probation for low/medium risk prisoners in 6 of the 21 probation areas. Sodexo is in charge of those probation services in South Yorkshire, Essex, Northumbria, Cumbria/Lancashire, Norfolk/Suffolk and Cambridgeshire/Northamptonshire. And the amount Sodexo are paid per probationer is much less- as low as £1500 per person in some cases.

The probation service trade union (NAPO) makes the sensible point that it is idiocy to pay the same company a comparative pittance for keeping someone out of prison, when they can earn over 20 times as much if the same person fouls up their probation and is recalled to prison.

Are we being unfair to Sodexo? Consider this: last March a riot broke out at HMP Northumberland. Inmates took over a whole wing. Chris Grayling claimed the cause of the riot was because prisoners were forced to work longer days. There were three problems with this explanation: one there were no similar riots at other prisons. Two, there are not actually enough jobs at the prison for the 1300 prisoners. Three, it wasn’t true. The riots were caused by staff shortages. The prison is run by Sodexo.

Finally, more bad news for Grayling as outlined in the Solicitors Journal Gazette:- 

A year of Grayling’s failings ends with Law Society seeking judicial review

The Law Society will be seeking a judicial review of the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ) legal aid crime duty tender process, the solicitors' representative body has announced. President of the Law Society, Andrew Caplen said that in the interests of access to justice, the public and the legal profession, the Society had decided to seek a judicial review of the legal aid crime duty tender process.

"In our opinion, the process creates a serious risk of market failure which could have major implications for society as well as the profession. We know that our members have concerns about their livelihoods, but also more widely about the impact the outcome of the process will have on access to justice for the most vulnerable in our society," said Caplen.

The legal profession was vociferous in its condemnation of the government's announcement in November to continue with its plans for two-tier contracts for criminal legal aid as well as a second fee cut of 8.75 per cent next year. This completes a miserable month for Grayling, who has already suffered a humiliating defeat in the High Court over the prisoner 'book ban'. Mr Justice Collins openly criticised the Lord Chancellor, saying the reference to books as a "privilege" was "strange" and "absurd".

TR Week Twenty Eight

Branch meeting and JNCC last week. Staff and management agree it is unsafe to proceed and yet MoJ see it differently. Well they would, wouldn't they? Their inspector has been compromised and he was SUPPOSED to be the independent arbiter, along with Brennan who has a record of colluding with incompetence and non-evidenced based risk taking. The MoJ under Grayling are a disgrace and an insult to democracy.

******
I have never hated phrases so much as 'innovative' and 'stubbonly high reoffending rates' as I do now. I feel positively sick about all of it. 

******
I can't sleep and am aware I am failing: I operate now in a curious hinterland between knowing nearly everything has changed and being unable to remember and process precisely what the changes are. Sounds ridiculous I know but the constant IT changes and frustration at the poor systems we now have together with the sheer volume of Probation Instructions issued, mean I operate in a constant state of confusion. 

Previously change was always coupled with adequate training. That is all gone now, we have our trainers themselves inadequately trained and the constant mantra is "I don't know, I will refer that query back to the centre". The work with my offenders continues as it always has, to what my managers previously assessed as being a high standard. It is just the recording, with systems going down then changing again and finally having IT support removed locally to work through NPS centralisation. 

This last issue is not economy of scale but truly a disaster. Even after all this time it can be a nightmare to use My Services. MoJ forgets that moving from systems that work to systems that do not, brings an inherent resistance to the change because we know it is poor quality and has improved nothing. I wish all my colleagues a good week ahead and the hope of JR is all that keeps me going.

This is not resistance to change - it is the utter failure of MoJ to win the hearts and minds of practitioners. It is the utter failure to deliver the safe service we used to deliver to the communities we serve. It is genuine concern for public safety and service user welfare. It is the utter lack of employer duty of care to staff. It is despair.

******
Hello my friend. I truly understand what you say and I suspect many of us across the country do. I have been racking my brains and saying to myself "What are we going to do about this?" I have been on strike, I have lobbied Parliament, written to my MP, other MP's, written to the press etc etc. We have JR - and what after that is all a bit nebulous - it seems to me if Grayling is going to steam roller ahead irrespective of any Judicial Review. 

As far as he is concerned there is too much hanging on all of this for his mates and multi nationals. Managers might care but have to tow the MoJ dictate and have become complicit. I too am struggling as the situation as it stands is untenable. I do not want to go into work. For now (and I hope I am wrong) I see no immediate end to it. Take care my friend and all of my colleagues out there. In adversity we have each other and this blog which is my central point of reference in all of this utter chaos.

******
If the signing of contracts goes ahead before the new year that's not good. Grayling has been found to lie to Parliament, the public, Napo and most probably charities and bidders - the wise charities and bidders have got out. Grayling is an unchecked mad man who will lie, promise anything and appear to give people what they want to get his way with TR.

******
In DTV today an email asking for EOI for vetting to work with Through the Gate. The general response in my office was to tell them to f*** off, be as stubborn as possible and wait until we are actually directed to do something. It will be interesting to see who in DTV embraces the changes and is willing to be the first to try to climb the new CRC ladder. I bet that makes them very popular with anyone anti-TR in their office, which will be most of their colleagues.

******
I think someone once described Probation as the grease that ran the wheels of justice. You may not notice us, but without us things will grind to a halt. Lets have a strike, ALL OF US. This is our Rosa Parks moment. We can stand firm or forever be resigned to domination by those who think they are better than us.

******
The human staff cost of all this debacle is heartbreaking. The long-serving staff who've been in the fortunate position to leave have done so and this final twist in the tale will push a few more over the edge. They just do not have to hang around to deal with this shit. Maybe, just maybe this latest turn of events will anger enough people to call a strike - it would be better represented now the reality is tangible - unlike last time.

******
Having given it some thought, whilst it's going to hurt my bank balance, I'd be up for a prolonged period of strike action. God knows I could do with a break from the incessant amount of PSRs that I've been writing lately. I think a prolonged, and by that I mean weeks, is going to be necessary to demonstrate the depth of our feelings and the impact of what things will look like without a NPS or CRCs. Lets hit the fuckers hard :)

******
Not a chance in hell of a full out strike. When will people realise we are dealing here with Thatchers bastard offspring. She broke the back of the working man and woman years ago. The Tories are doing what the Tories have always done, privatise everything and fuck em all! If I go on strike for 2 weeks I lose my home probably. If I lose my job I lose my home. I will take my chances alone and clearly shows why I stopped paying subs years ago. The unions are a joke and I am sad to say this. 

******
The most dangerous part of TR is moving an offender when they are at their riskiest. I did a witness statement for JR and the legal team commented on my evidence in this area saying it was strong, and important point to make. How are MoJ going to make this safe? They can't unless they bring the two sides back together. We should have continued to fight on this point alone.

******
Just heard that if no increase in Probation Institute sign up it could fold - there's another reason not to join graylings PI.

******
The torture never stops... from the published testgates 4/5:

"ICT Delivery Confidence 
• Overall Delivery confidence remains at Amber, reflecting various challenges across workstreams. Additional governance boards have been established and plans are in place to manage Go-Live risks 
• n-Delius: Activity remains on track for Go-Live on 16 December with planned milestones met. Testboards have been put in place to manage this critical activity. 
• OASys: Remains on track for Go-Live on 8 December. User Acceptance Testing [UAT] has completed with no outstanding defects.
• Data Archiving: Work is currently underway to plan and coordinate activity and resources. Risk of delivery due to resource availability and volume of work for CRCs. 
• RSR/RoSH: RSR tool is live and RoSH has successfully passed UAT with a two week pilot now in train."

******
I think the HR advice is sound and will rapidly bring MOJ round in a way that all previous action has been unable to. If your job is making you ill see your GP, take guidance and take sick leave if you are too ill for work. Protect your health.

******
The HR advice seems sound. If you are unwell don't be a hero. Perhaps retired PO temps should withdraw their labour to help a just cause.

******
I think we should lobby the Green Party to put returning the Probation Service to the public sector in to their manifesto; I wish the SNP were south of the border they might do it too. Labour would be the ideal party to reverse TR but they are too far to the right at the moment. This is going to be a long war we must get more probation staff to fight it. Could NAPO book a series of events in big cities and invite all probation staff to attend? Lets radicalise them. I would take part.

******
TR will fail, and is already failing, as anyone who continues to work in the field can attest. By the end of this week we lose dual access in the majority of cases, so all those mistakes in allocation, and oh my there are SO many mistakes in allocation, cases, people, being shunted to and fro...all those mistakes can't be rectified. We won't even know what we are missing half the time. And I'm sorry, but unless you actually have to do the day job, as a PO or possibly SPO, you haven't got a clue just how much of a mess all this is. And any idea that this can all be massaged away with spin, CRC managers attempting to blame NPS for all the things that go wrong...ha ha ha. You ain't seen nothing yet. My concern is that this will end up with people being hurt. Spartacus.

******
Make no mistake, dual access will be removed. It's been delayed but it will go in January.

******
That fact has now been confirmed, no dual access going forward from January 2015. God help us all, especially the public as they will not have been served well in terms of public protection.

******
A message to my colleagues: it is time to realise that our years of hard work, dedicated loyalty and personal sacrifice have meant nothing, time to see the role as a PO as just a job with little in the way of future prospects, job satisfaction or acceptable financial remuneration. On that basis don't put your selves out any longer, just go through the motions as we as individuals are not responsible for trying to keep up our previous excellent work. The failures that will without doubt follow, lie firmly at the door of the MoJ.

******
The cutting of salaries is becoming a trend in the voluntary sector as are zero hours contracts. The bosses on £100k and rising, while the front-line is urged to examine their consciences and choose between pay cuts, reductions in services and redundancies. The only thing that can ever stop this daylight robbery is industrial action and I note that it was effective in getting St Mungo's to climbdown (to prevent a 10-day strike) after they, too, tried to impose £5,000 pay cuts. 

£5000 seems to be the norm and it won't, I guess, be long before we hear about them in CRCs. If such slashing cuts rain down on probation staff I hope it comes as a surprise to no-one. Napo needs deep roots at branch level so members are prepared when the bells tolls for thee. And whilst I do believe the fight against the imposition of TR is over, the fight to protect conditions of service is about to begin. I do not think 'continuity of service' will be a trusty shield, as goalposts get moved in 'management restructures'. Nor do we want to see two-tier workforces becoming established. 

Had the staff at St Mungo's rolled over, they would have been robbed, but they stood together. Amazing what a bit of solidarity can achieve. And they did it without a Probation Institute – sorry it just sticks in my craw!

******
Agreed. I work in a prison and the Shelter staff are really helpful but their management are awful. They are all frightened of 'the big boss' who has publicly chastised them in front of others. I also question their ethics. Their campaigns and ethos behind those are not matched with the same ethics in terms of how they treat their staff. They are target driven and how they meet those targets is questionable. I'm not in a Purple Futures area but when I heard about the contracts I was more worried about Shelter's involvement than that of Interserve.

******
There always seems to be one member of staff who seems to be paid the same as you but who float around with little to do? Well today I looked at their OASys and now know why. Suffice to say seeing as their OASys are getting signed off and are half as detailed as mine has made me decide to start making cutbacks of my own. It's made me feel so much less stressed - may even have a lunch break tomorrow.

******
Currently, we are being asked to strip back files of general correspondence that was normally kept and to scan reports etc to be stored electronically. This is obviously very time consuming and arguably destroying general correspondence that is not held electronically (ie originally produced via Delius or the previous databases) Could fall foul of the requirement to store data for the prescribed time.

As mentioned in the main post, this is a rushed job and the potential for mistakes to occur is considerable. As for the potential to sue the SoS, whilst your legal rep would be the best person to advise you, I would think the CRC as a separate company would be responsible if they haven't carried it out correctly, or if NPS, then potentially the MoJ.

******
It is becoming clearer, but not better. This latest data clearing seems to have just come out of the blue. If it is unlawful to keep NPS stuff in the private sector, why didn't CG inform people months ago? Even if they didn't have to do it before the sell-off, staff would at least have been prepared. I think it is an issue which either CG did not know about and has just been advised, or else it's another clever ruse/punishment to pile on the stress.

******
It gets worse. If a CRC case completes, the file is immediately released to the NPS and sent for storage at their central records archive. If the CRC get an enquiry about that offender, they cannot respond as they no longer have access to hard copies or computer records. The operating model has every possible flaw built in. It's genius.

******
The way a case terminates eg on 12th Dec and is then erased from view on 13th Dec is awful. I regularly need to look back at case records for addresses to send custody educational certificates to, or to let people know if their SSO has expired or been spent.

******
I am concerned about the implications for staff where cases are subject to complaint to the Probation Ombudsman - it can take a considerable time for complaints to be made, investigated, outcome report, appeal then escalation to the ombudsman. Not having original sources has serious implications for staff - for many years information has been consolidated into OASys, with finite number of characters, so what happens when a practitioner is asked where the information came from without the source files to refer to?

To be fair, what happens when a service user wants to challenge information? I can think of a Child Protection case when information contained in the OASys was challenged and Family Court became involved. Fortunately files were retrieved from archives with the original source able to be produced and verified. This is fraught with risks and I wonder what the Information Commissioner would say? There will be breaches, staff do not understand this.

******
What about DO NOT DESTROY/RETAIN forms that have to be signed off by SPOs and placed on the front of the case file? If they've got rid of that practice, then it's truly game over. There are some deeply troubling clients and for those in particular, files need to be retained indefinitely... Psych Reports etc.

******
Surely all records should be passed to NPS, as all closed case files pass to NPS? And what happens when someone is sentenced and managed by CRC...do NPS pass all records to CRC only for them to be destroyed by CRC at completion or breach of the order? It's bad enough transferring between colleagues in same office let alone Areas, now we will be passing stuff in to BIONIC abyss.

******
Thank god for Chris Grayling; practically every practitioner who works with dangerous and difficult individuals every single working day was wrong, yet our Secretary of state just 'knew' that these reforms would help bring down those stubborn re-offending rates and he didnt allow anything as trivial as common sense to stop him...dont worry, we're clearly in good hands.....

******
The bitching has already started in my office. CRC staff have refused to see any duty appointments that come in from Court and are not on their Delius. I know allocation is supposed to be within 24 hours, but the reality is that this is not taking place. They've spoke to their SPO about it and it's down to him to resolve, however, until then we have to see them. I really cannot say I blame them and their claims that 'not a CRC case as it's not allocated to CRC' are completely factual. Unfortunately it means that we have to see them which is a pain if their manager is out of the office or off and the case cannot be allocated. Our NPS manager just shrugs. Tensions are running high and I very much doubt that the recent Court NAPO Court case is going to help.

******
I said very early on that the best way to prove the plan is ludicrous is to let it happen. Two years from now, Probation will be on the front pages of the papers because of serial cock-ups of the kind that we have seen in other areas of Government policy.

******
I think MoJ are running scared. Their press release tells me bidders have been rattled and need assurance.

******
What an absolute mess we now find ourselves in. No plan, no direction, no right of appeal, no information, no "significant concessions". Share sale is now right on top of us and Grayling et al state NAPO have backed down. Haven't they wiped the floor enough with us? I think not. They have plenty left in them yet. What next? Cuts, cuts and more cuts including services and jobs. It all looks bleak. When will we turn around and say enough is enough???

******
Many have. We are losing good staff almost by the hour. Remember - the new operating models are untested and mistakes are already being made by the truckload. NAPO has not failed, it has been beaten. They are different things.

******
What I find offensive is the way that the MoJ /NOMS are rubbishing NAPO. NAPO is the union of the staff, so this is a personal attack on the same staff they want to encourage to make this work! There is no conciliatory language just rubbing all our noses in the piss on the floor.

I feel utter contempt for the shit heads who are pushing this sale forward and especially the lying b***ard Grayling who has blatantly lied to the JSC when he said he had no involvement in the bidding and when he said there was 500 additional PO's and he turned to Spurr who corrected him on operational staff and then he said they are all qualified the same! He is an idiot, but worse he is a dangerous idiot.

I hear senior mandarins are touring the country to see the new shit working - stop telling them its all ok, 'cos that's what they are hearing and start telling them more about the shit that won't work. We should be the most belligerent workforce because of this crap and we should be telling Allars to stick it up his arse if he is leading the contempt. Tonight I am thoroughly fed up with our so called leaders - they read all this stuff or should I say there are people who read this and try to track down the authors for them - sneaky snivelling shits.

******
Welcome to the jungle. Now CRCs are owned by the big boys & girls, it gets serious. Pay cuts, loss of terms & conditions, payback for the blog & the inconvenience of delaying, irritating & embarrassing MoJ, NOMS, etc. No amount of academic angst or ideological twittering or whining will change what's coming. You haven't even begun to see what pissed-off CEOs & their flunkies are capable of. Grayling's a pussycat by comparison. Lets hope Santa has enough kevlar flak jackets to go around. A very sad & distressed PO.

******
CRC model includes examining individual accountability and performance in reducing recidivism in own caseload! No detail on this yet! However, will measures take account of diversity, complexity, tiering, previous convictions of each case? Possibly not when we consider that the race to the bottom includes taking less into account at the point of conviction with less PSRs and more FDRs and the not fit for purpose RSR tool! 

We are about to see staff hounded for systemic failures which TR has introduced. Some practitioners will be taking a weather eye on case allocations in an effort to protect themselves from potential performance sanctions, with infighting developing between colleagues and middle managers! Grading will become meaningless under such a model! Time to stop papering over the cracks people!

******
Man down the pub tells me mass capability on the way for CRC.

******
Appraisals. In some organisations, they can get you promoted, demoted or even sacked. In the probation service, they are absolutely pointless. Please put me right if anyone out there has ever had one of their appraisal documents see the light of day once it has been signed off. They are a make work invention by someone at MoJ with not enough work to do. I used to have 9 of them to do and they went to personnel for filing, never to be mentioned again. What a farce.

******
Until you are in a redundancy situation. Then they count a lot. The number of points you get directly relates to your appraisal.

******
I wish I could say I cared but at this stage I don't. I'm of an age where retirement is a viable option and even without EVR I still have one eye on the door. As a PSO I have nearly 90 cases and when we get the under 12 months, this will likely increase by at least 50%, something completely unmanageable! New Year and new start. My children need an unpaid childminder so I think this will be my new job next year.