HMPPS - Reaction

Here we have Rob Allen's take on the news sneaked out yesterday by the MoJ under cover of the Brexit Parliamentary vote:- 

NOMS to HMPPS: Rebadging or Real Reform?

So the National Offender Management Service is no more, to be replaced by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Is it a rebadging of what is perceived as an unloved and unlovely bureaucratic monster with a more transparent and comforting title? Or a more significant shift in responsibilities which will lead to real change?

There are undoubtedly highly positive elements in the Truss reforms; long overdue investment in staff not only of resources but professional training and status. There will be a greater focus on women in the criminal justice system - much needed although we’ll have to see whether adding the responsibility to an existing role will bring about the far reaching reforms that are urgently required.

For some in the probation world, the hope of a quickie divorce from their forced marriage to prisons has been dashed although the new arrangements could lead to a conscious uncoupling in due course. Much depends on the review of the reformed system which will report in the spring.

But what of prisons? The Prison Safety and Reform White Paper makes no mention of replacing NOMS. It’s in the design of the reformed prison system in paragraph 68. HMPPS will be an Executive Agency like NOMS. It will continue with the core of its business – managing prisons -but be stripped of its role in commissioning services, making policy and it seems monitoring performance. From April these functions will move to the Ministry of Justice. Agreements between individual prisons and the MoJ will also come into play although in an unpromising start, the Prison Governors Association have advised their members not to sign them. Despite the White Paper’s promise of negotiation, there apparently hasn’t been any.

Although the new arrangements promise clarity, there are still many questions. Is it sensible to split commissioning and contract management between the MoJ and HMPPS? Where will Electronic monitoring fit? And where will the line on policy development be drawn? The Prison service instructions introduced last year included guidance on preventing corruption, the interception of communications, faith and pastoral care for prisoners, searching of cells and the care of transgender prisoners. We have been promised a bonfire of these instructions although almost all look important and most essential. Some may be better informed by policy wonks in the Ministry of Justice but most need experienced operational input.

One of NOMS biggest critics argued it was “dangerously out of touch with its operational heartland”. In that respect the new arrangements could make things worse not better.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

The Napo response:-

The Secretary of State for Justice has today deposited a statement in the House of Commons Library which confirms that the existing National Offender Management Service is to be rebranded (with effect from the 1st April) and will be known as Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). 

It is understood that the intention is to create a more effective Executive Agency that will deliver improved integrated offender management using the various skill sets that are currently available within the prison and probation workforce. Napo expects that the Ministerial statement will also announce the creation of a new policy directorate within the Ministry of Justice covering Prisons, Offenders and Youth Justice.

The Chief Executive for HMPPS will be Michael Spurr with Sonia Crozier retaining responsibility for Probation services and assuming responsibility for the development of a new approach to the custodial estate for female clients.

Current arrangements for managing the contracts with Community Rehabilitation Companies will remain with the Agency, and it is intended that the reorganisation will result in the development of a more focused approach to team working with an increase (as yet unknown) as a result of the current Offender Management Review, in the numbers of probation practitioners working within public sector prisons. Here there will be teams led by a Senior Probation Officer who will be part of the line management regime that is overseen by the Prison Governor.

Napo understands that there are no expected implications for individual terms and conditions and no possibility of redundancies as a result of this change. Clearly, there will be a need to enter into early discussions with senior HMPPS management about the staffing plans for each public sector prison establishment, the development of suitable industrial relation arrangements, and the substantial challenges of identifying and dealing with the technical complexities in constructing and delivering a more integrated approach to rehabilitation and supervision.

Napo will be issuing further news for members at the earliest opportunity and we will be meeting urgently with our sister union the Prison Officers Association to consider their views on this development.

Whist generally welcoming this initiative, that if it is successful, will place probation at the heart of the justice system Napo has already advised senior management that urgent action must be taken to address the perennial problems of low pay and excessive workloads, both of which are at the centre of Napo's recently launched campaigns.

Ian Lawrence        Yvonne Pattinson Chris Winters          Dean Rogers
General Secretary National Co-Chair National Co-Chair Assistant General Secretary

--oo00oo--

From Facebook:-

Predictably very little interest in this story in terms of column inches. It has generated little if any public interest and some fairly unimpressed Twitter postings by ex chief probation officers. It's clearly a failed PR move by a frightened bunny caught in the headlights response rather than anything worthy of much attention. A take over by one ineffective and dysfunctional organisation by another ineffective and dysfunctional organisation to form an even larger ineffective and dysfunctional organisation with impressive letter heads (what next embossed envelopes?). Liz Truss shows a complete lack of anything that might be generously termed strategic vision keeping whatever talents she may possess extremely well hidden from all. She has however demonstrated consistent levels of ignorance/impotence in the face of an ongoing crisis . Therefore it is no surprise to anyone that the answer Liz has managed to formulate after straining every brain cell she possesses to the limit to address prison overcrowding and probation failing is not what was required but rather 'let's change the name and give everyone a new logo with Her Majesty on the letterhead' whoopee do. David Raho

 I particularly like this paragraph given the past five years:-

"The creation of HM Prison and Probation Service will build a world-leading, specialist agency, dedicated to professionalising the prison and probation workforce, backed by an additional £100m a year and 2,500 additional prison officers."

 "Professionalising the prison and probation workforce" FUCKING CHEEK OF THE WOMAN

Very understandable scepticism from most in probation combined with hiding the story in very, very busy news day - not least with the Brexit vote. However, whilst scepticism is good cynicism needs to be avoided. The fact there isn't a plan (let alone a worked up strategy) does give probation a chance to grab the agenda and shape it. This is the central admission that both arms of Grayling's prison and probation revolutions have fallen off. Once Gove changed direction, and started questioning, today was inevitable. Even a chance of moving rehabilitation to the heart of the justice system is worth trying but - and it is a big but - to work they need to invest, listen to staff, work out the huge organisation and people issues in both services, honestly accept recent failures...without all of that and more they'll just prove that doing a good thing badly is not much better than their usual doing bad things badly. Dean Rogers.

Is there anyone left from probation with any influence to "grab the agenda"

I tend to agree. Probation as a profession is being deprofressionalised and subsumed. Dean the 'big but' is an enormous ask and would mean those in power doing something they have never previously committed themselves to doing even when responsibility was shared between the Home Office and local authorities. We know what they should do but I would be amazed if they committed to doing this. For me this goes in entirely the wrong direction with the inevitable result of a a prison dominated organisation with a 99% prison agenda occasionally talking down to those providing probation services indicating they should do more for less. In my opinion control probation needs to be devolved to local authorities and at the very least be roughly coterminous with police areas. There is little justification for a large centralised bureaucracy that have never delivered anything but bureaucracy failing to stand up for probation as a profession and acting as nothing more than a political football with no semblance of an autonomous identity. If I am proven wrong in my scepticism I will freely admit it but for most practitioners the impact with be to see a new sign go up outside one of the few remaining offices. David Raho.

So NOMS is going replaced by the new Prison and Probation Services!! Essentially the same organisation with a convenient name change!! What will it mean in real terms for probation?? Resources are already pledge for the prison side any for us??

Well said.

Headlines on GMB tv this am is campaigners are saying probation is failing female offenders in spite of increased resources.....here we go again. It makes me so angry. People are working so hard and with often overwhelming case loads and reducing resources. Can't they see it's the bureaucratic and ill informed decisions which are failing, not us

Sonia Crozier has been given the lead on this. What could possibly go wrong?

Same old with a new name. Prison Officers are leaving at a rate not seen, new ones will not be in place for some time. Recruitment for Probation haphazard major shortages in South East Kent can't recruit PO'S despite MFS £32k start!

I turned down two NPS jobs as they wouldn't put me back on the top scale despite being on it for some years before I left and having over 25 years in the service!! Others made the same decision!! This was based on a prison service policy!!

Yes agree. I was approached and I told them to come back with something sensible. The prestige of working for the NPS is not worth a pay cut

The only way is to return to what worked - no CRC and no civil service - both are equally as bad as the other !!

I was no more than a facilities operative within the probation so no one will understand where I am coming from but I will try. In my thirty years I worked under many CPO's and don't get me wrong they were all good people but not successful in fighting politicians who have their own agendas. Sir Graham Smith was the only one to successfully fight the then Home Secretary on joining the prison service and probation together. He did this with skill and humility and a personal belief that offenders could change. Rather than incarceration into a prison system that was failing even in the eighties. On a personal note if I achieved anything in my career it was because I took my lead from him and always put Staff and visitors above my own needs and it served me well. (I only wish I could be as eloquent as he was).

I know, I saw this yesterday and was too depressed and simultaneously enraged. Same shit, different name.

Thought could not feel any worse about it all.......

It's amazing how they keep pulling it out of the bag. Buts it's okay as we will be professionals soon!

Insulting patronizing.... Words fail me ....

Prison Service Swallows Probation Whole

Well here it is, a day late, but confirmation of the demise of NOMS and the takeover of the National Probation Service by the Prison Service, under a smirking Michael Spurr no doubt. There's absolutely nothing here for probation and indeed the 'notes to editors' confirms it - it's all about prison officers.  

A new frontline service focused on reforming offenders and cutting crime will launch in April 2017, Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss announced today.

• Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to replace National Offender Management Service (NOMS)
• new service will be responsible for rolling out government’s reform programme to reduce reoffending and protect the public
• the service will launch new leadership programme and new promotion opportunities for staff
• changes backed by additional £100 million to boost frontline by an extra 2,500 staff

HMPPS will have full responsibility for the operational management of offenders in custody and the community, including strengthening security in prisons, tackling extremism and building intelligence about criminal gangs.

Supported by work to recruit an extra 2,500 officers, the new service will launch leadership and promotion programmes for prison and probation officers to further professionalise and build pride in the service.

The new operationally focused service will be supported by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) taking on responsibility for overall future policy direction, setting standards, scrutinising prison performance and commissioning services.

Justice Secretary Liz Truss said:

"This new and operationally focused frontline service will implement the reforms we have announced to make our prisons safe and cut reoffending. Our prison and probation officers do a vital job and they deserve to work in a world-class organisation which supports them in reforming offenders and keeping the public safe. Creating HMPPS will bring clarity to managing our prisons and probation services while further professionalising staff and building pride in their work."

The move follows the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper which outlined an overhaul of the prisons estate with the forthcoming Prison and Courts Bill due to make reforming offenders a key duty of prisons for the first time. 

For the first time, there will also be a Board Director with specific responsibility for women across the whole system, reporting into HMPPS Chief Executive, Michael Spurr.

Michael Spurr said:

"The launch of HMPPS provides a great opportunity to focus on and improve operational performance in prisons and probation. There is a great deal to do but I am confident that with the additional resources the government are providing, we can transform the system and deliver the high quality of service the public deserve."

The service will be dedicated to professionalising the prison and probation workforce. New schemes to improve promotion opportunities have been launched, including:

• enhanced qualifications for probation officers
• a new leadership programme
• an apprenticeship scheme (to launch in April 2017)
• higher pay and recognition for specialist skilled officers dealing with complex issues such as counter-terrorism, suicide and self-harm support

This wholescale, organisational reform will be supported by measures within the Prisons and Courts Bill, which will set out a new framework and clear system of accountability for prisons, building on the wide-ranging reforms set out in the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper.

Notes to editors

Progress on recruitment and retention:

• we have made 389 job offers to new recruits wanting to join the Prison Service which puts the government on track to recruit the first 400 of the extra 2,500 frontline officers committed to be in place by the end of March 2017
• boosting pay for hard-working staff by up to £4,000 at some of the most difficult-to-recruit prisons and those with high levels of staff-turnover, including HMP High Down, HMP Downview and HMP Coldingley
• appointing 75 mentors for new starter prison officers to help them in their first few months in the job which we know can be a difficult time
• providing retention payments at sites with the greatest levels of staff turnover. For example at Feltham which is close to Heathrow we provide a £3000 retention payment;
• starting targeted local recruitment initiatives at 30 sites so that governors can more easily recruit the people they need
• launching a new Prison Officer apprenticeship scheme next year for over 1000 new officers that will help increase diversity and make it easier to join the Prison Service
• developing a new graduate scheme that will encourage people from a broader range of backgrounds to join the Service
• we have launched a Troops to Officers scheme that will support people to join the prison service after leaving the military

Latest From Napo 137

Defending National Collective Bargaining - Issue 2 Feb 2017

In the last edition of Defending National Collective Bargaining, we reported that the elected National Officers had met to decide on how to respond to the result of the indicative ballot on possible industrial action to defend existing national collective bargaining arrangements.

This bulletin offers clarification as to the Officers decision with regard to developing specific bargaining arrangements with NPS and CRC employers.

Some important facts

Following the result of the Indicative Ballot the Officer Group assessed the response from those members who had taken part and after a considered debate, with differing views, it was collectively agreed that there was not yet sufficient evidence to support a move to a formal ballot for industrial action at this stage. Consequently, and given that all employers had announced their intention to withdraw from the NNC, a decision had to be made as to whether Napo should now engage in developing bargaining structures with the NPS and the CRC owners, or simply stand aside and leave engagement with the employer in the sole hands of UNISON.

Since the AGM, all employers have been seeking union engagement on possible arrangements for future negotiation and consultation if the NNC were to cease. Until such time as we were able to assess the response from members in the indicative ballot, Napo reserved its position on formally agreeing to the proposals as per the decision taken at the AGM, but has sought to ensure that commitments have been included in the draft versions which match our overall objectives to defend collective bargaining and, as members would expect, reflect our primary responsibility and obligation to protect members interests at the workplace.

NNC no longer exists but Napo's agenda remains live

We have done everything possible to try and convince the employers to remain in the NNC, indeed we have been doing so ever since the employers threatened to withdraw from this over a year ago, but once NOMS had decided to carry out their long standing intention to pull out, the CRC owners followed suit. Nearly all employers have now withdrawn from the NNC or are in the process of doing so. The NNC mechanisms will not be restored.

In light of these developments a vote was taken within the Officer Group which resulted in a clear majority decision to ask local negotiators to develop employer specific collective bargaining models, with full-time Napo Officials directly leading any negotiations. In such talks, Napo will be demanding nationally agreed positions. For example, in the 2017-18 pay negotiations Napo will produce a single national claim across all employers, and the National Executive Committee will be asked to assess the impact of negotiations against this benchmark. We are confident that the structures being proposed, will recognise the protected existing contractual guarantees encompassed in the NNC Handbook and National Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement (both of which remain in force even without the NNC machinery) which were agreed prior to share sale. Consultation about non-contractual local policies and practices will continue to happen locally, as they did under the former Trust and NNC structures, with Napo ensuring that the key issues which impact on our members at the workplace will be negotiated and supported by Full Time Officials in partnership with members and activists.

We intend to put more resources into training and support for our local representatives than ever before; this is in reaction to the scale of local challenges, such as workloads, and because of the strain of negotiating with multiple CRC owners and the demanding agenda being faced by our members in the NPS and Probation Board Northern Ireland.

Planning for Industrial Action

To be absolutely clear, the foregoing does not mean that Napo has ruled out the prospect of future industrial action; but in order for this to stand any chance of success we all need to all pull together and lay the foundations for a hard-hitting campaign that if needs be will seriously impact on the employer and which works best for our members.

Based on the current mood amongst members to move to industrial action now, (as evidenced in the indicative ballot turnout and direct feedback from our activists), any notion that we would ask our members to sacrifice wages for token industrial action and potentially wreck our ability to wage a national campaign in the future, would be both tactically naïve and irresponsible. Members should remain confident that where a majority of members respond to a call for action on a significant issue then Napo will respond accordingly. The National Executive Committee meets in March and will have a full opportunity to make an important contribution to the ongoing debate about Napo’s industrial strategy in defence of collective bargaining. As indicated previously, we have made it very clear to all employers that Napo is prepared to fight for fair pay and equal treatment for all of our members, wherever they work.

Napo Officers Group
Napo General Secretary

Lord Ramsbotham Speaks Out

I see Lord Ramsbotham has upped the pressure on Liz Truss to do something about the prison crisis and in the process firmly put the blame for the mess on her predecessor Chris Grayling. This in the news website:-

Prisons in crisis because of ‘absolutely crazy’ reforms, says former boss

Jails are facing their gravest crisis in a generation because of “absolutely crazy” job cuts and mismanagement by ministers for more than two decades, a former Chief Inspector of Prisons has warned. Lord Ramsbotham delivered a devastating critique of a system struggling with overcrowding, violence and drugs and called for drastic action to cut numbers behind bars. He spoke out in an interview with i ahead of the expected publication this month of Government plans to overhaul the running of English and Welsh prisons. The crossbench peer, who was Chief Inspector for six years, said the system had endured continual chaos in the 26 years since a landmark report by Lord Woolf into prison conditions.

Deliberate actions

“It’s in crisis, but I think that it’s an avoidable crisis because it has been made a great deal worse by the deliberate actions of ministers and their officials.” He reserved his fiercest criticism for Chris Grayling’s tenure as Justice Secretary between 2012 and 2015 when spending on prisons was heavily cut.

“Chris Grayling’s dreadful so-called reforms have been nothing short of a disaster,” said Lord Ramsbotham, who has been a prison reform campaigner since stepping down in 2001 as chief inspector. “He reduced the prison staff by a third – that was absolutely crazy. The numbers are now a ratio of one officer to six prisoners.” That compared with a ratio of one to three in 1980 and one to just over two in 1990, he said.

Fragile situation

His comments follow an inspection report last week which found the situation at Exeter jail was “fragile”, with only 29 officers on duty for 490 prisoners. He said: “The people who I blame as much as Chris Grayling for implementing this are the officials who should have stood up and been counted over that. “They knew perfectly well that staff numbers were in a drastic situation – they should have said so.”

Lord Ramsbotham was dismissive of last year’s announcement by Liz Truss, the current Justice Secretary, of plans to recruit an extra 2,500 prison staff. “The trouble is if you recruit 2,500 they are going to take some time to get trained. But [ministers] deliberately got rid of people who knew what they were doing, they were experienced,” he said.

Ghastly suicide rates

Staff shortages are at the root of problems besetting jails that have led to “ghastly suicide rates” and increasing levels of violence faced by officers and inmates alike, he said. The situation was now more serious than it has been since Lord Woolf’s 1991 report following riots at Strangeways prison in Manchester.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are committed to making our prisons places of safety and reform. “Since taking up her role, the Justice Secretary has taken urgent action to stabilise the estate by tackling the drugs, drones and phones that undermine security. We are also investing £100m annually to boost the frontline by 2,500 officers. “These issues will not be resolved in weeks or months but our wholescale reforms will lay the groundwork to transform our prisons, reduce reoffending and make our communities safer.”

Inmate numbers should be slashed

Lord Ramsbotham called for the prison system to undergo a radical restructuring, including slashing numbers in custody from more than 85,000 to around 50,000. The former Army general suggested the cut could be achieved if courts handed out more community sentences to minor offenders. Inmates with mental health problems should be diverted into specialist treatment and foreign prisoners immediately deported at the end of their sentences. He said overcrowding is now so bad that programmes, including mental health and drug treatment, “can’t be delivered”.

A Grim Statistic

This recent blog post from Frances Crook of the Howard League serves to remind us just how bad things have got in our prison system:-

Yesterday was a bad day. The Ministry of Justice admitted that 119 people had died by suicide in prisons over the last year. The figures of self-injury and assaults also published yesterday revealed the chaos in the system.

It happens that I had a meeting with the Secretary of State, Liz Truss, on Wednesday to discuss how she hopes to deal with prisons. There’s some hope on the horizon and her plans to increase staff numbers, invest in workforce development and improve activities inside prisons are welcome.

I remain unconvinced that this is enough. The problem at the heart of the prison system is that there are too many prisoners. Too many people go into prison, and too many stay too long.

Two-and-a-half thousand new staff will not make up for the many thousands lost. As Labour found in the 1990s, even if you throw money at prisons, they fail if they are crowded and purposeless.

If we could stem this tide of people back into prison, it would ease some of the pressure.

No politician, when in power, has had the courage to deal with the numbers issue head-on. Even Michael Gove shied away from saying there were too many people in prison. But, maybe there are chinks of light, just maybe.

Whilst there is not to be a public or legislative programme to curb the courts and reform sentencing, I think small measures could at least ease the pressure on the system.

I was particularly struck by the fact that the conversation with the Secretary of State came back to the issue of people being recalled to prison several times. This is something the Howard League is focusing on. Too many people are recalled to prison for administrative reasons.

In the 12 months ending September 2016, 22,094 people were recalled to prison. Of those, 7,752 had served sentences of less than 12 months, and 464 were IPPs. One thousand, three hundred and sixty-one women were recalled, 695 of whom had served sentences of less than 12 months.

It is clear that, if we could stem this tide of people back into prison, it would ease some of the pressure. I think there is now recognition that recalls without good reason create injustice, trigger incidents of self-injury and cause overcrowding.

I welcome that the Secretary of State is looking at this; I just hope she can do something about it quickly.

Frances Crook

Pick of the Week 22

At last, a spirited response, without an unprincipled gloss. A split in Napo. Reminds me of a Leonard Cohen line, 'There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in'.

It's an odd state of affairs when an AGM resolution needs to be restored from Napo's recycle bin. It should not be so easy in the first instance for officers and officials to overturn a member-led resolution which was passed in opposition to what the leadership wanted. At the very least abandoning the AGM resolution should not have been presented as a fait accompli, but as a proposal for consultation, on the assumption that 'member-led' is not a meaningless slogan. Now the two dissenters have to seek to reverse a perverse decision that was imposed.

The decision to acquiesce and appease the employers is the wrong one. It is worth fighting for the national codes of service. The 2014 staff transfer agreement shows that the employers cannot be trusted so the appeasers are deluding themselves if they believe they can negotiate, again, from weakness. Let Napo members at least have an opportunity to reject the race to the bottom mentality of the employers. It is time to fight back.

******
They should now publish all the figures. This could hardly be called whistle blowing as the authors are either withholding information because they agree with Lawrence (don't trust the membership) or they do not have the full facts and are bluffing. Pearson saw a win win situation here in his bid to replace Lawrence by pretending to support Berry in a principled crusade against the end of national negotiations in apparent defense of collective bargaining, knowing full well this will fail, but unlike Berry he will gain credit from this for appearing to fight to both support trade union principles and appearing to support the left wing of Napo. It's a smart move well played. Someone explain this to Chas that he is being played.

******
Fighting talk from two principled people but this is very much a case of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Local collective bargaining is the way to go now as no one will get the NPS and the CRCs back to the table. Napo simply hasn't got the membership density to make these kinds of demands. The national negotiating machinery no longer exists. Unison have walked away. GMB have no objection to local collective bargaining. Employers have not said they want to end collective bargaining, they just want to do it locally.

What is feared are regional pay deals where probation staff in London and the South East, where they struggle to recruit and retain staff due to the cost of living, are likely to be paid more and enjoy increased benefits under local collective bargaining agreements whereas those in other regions, where there is a surplus of staff and the cost of living is lower, may well not get increases and increased benefits.

No Napo member working in the CRC in London and the South East in their right mind should support a campaign to support bringing back national collective bargaining. With the demise of national collective bargaining staff in areas where there is a high cost of living and whose pay has been frozen can now look forward to increased pay and improved benefits.

Chas Berry split the vote enabling the ineffective chairs to be re-elected and now he is splitting Napo over a campaign he and his supporters cannot win and will achieve nothing other than to force Napo into talks with PCS in whose offices they are currently residing, with a view to being assimilated. The cash from the sale of Chivalry Road is no doubt earmarked for Ian and Co redundancy payments.

******
The AGM motion was a short sighted own goal as Chas & Alex knew it would be at that time. The NNC was a lost cause but thought they could get Napo members stirred up over a perceived loss of collective bargaining, although even this was misleading. It is as well to read what Napos negotiating committee had to say in their paper presented to those attending the AGM. It is readily apparent they had given up on the NNC as a lost cause months before the AGM. They assumed Chas would wake up and smell the coffee but as usual he refused to accept the reality of what was actually happening and spoke passionately about fighting for something that he knew could not be achieved. Unfortunately he has been valiantly fighting for lost causes for some time and Napo is just the latest vehicle. Unfortunately Napo members only got to vote on a pointless motion that was effectively a non runner - the punters were told it was a safe bet. They were not told that the NNC had already ceased to function (they didn't even book a room to meet in!!) and its days as a viable negotiating forum had ended and no one doubted it would soon no longer exist.

******
It was the weakest opposition to any motion I ever seen. Barely audible, incoherent, garbled. A major fail by the elected top table to deal with what has become a major problem ultimately now threatening Napos very existence.

******
So the RARs are a total fudge, MoJ/NPS & CRC providers are all doing different things, courts haven't a clue what various providers are providing and there are hundreds of people in England & Wales still subject to court orders who have completed their RARs but never been seen for months. Equally there are hundreds who have been given court orders of 12 months or more who have completed their RARs & then been discharged from their order "for good progress" after 2,3,4,5 months. And presumably no-one knows the true picture, hence the 'paper'.

So MoJ say protecting the public is their number one priority, hence trashing historical "wet liberal" probation and replacing it with farcical pocket-stuffing probation, aka TR. No! Their only concern is protecting the Providers from exposure to "business risk", i.e. loss of money by CRCs and loss of any remaining credibility by MoJ/Noms. Total Shambles.

******
The RAR guidance is flawed because the RAR legislation is flawed. There is no legal basis for the muddled conclusion. Another example that useless twats run the Probation Service.

******
I think the paper from the MoJ means nothing. Private probation companies will operate whatever way they wish, just as they are doing with staff redundancies, excessive caseloads, training or the services they provide for service users. To my mind they hold all the cards. The government are over a barrel. Privateers have already made a big noise about being misled prior to signing contracts, which suggests to me that if the contracts were taken from them legal challenge would be mounted to force the government to pay for the whole life of the contracts. If the private companies walk away, then it would take legal challenge by the government to impose any financial penalty. Either way, it would prove very damaging for the government. Private companies know exactly the grip they hold on government, and like everything else they'll exploit it to the max.

******
As a recently retired court officer with many years prosecuting breaches under my now expanding belt, to the last I could not work out the basis for the current requirement regarding reporting "outside" the designated number of RAR days as "supervision" in its own right specifically ceased to exist. I did spend a considerable amount of time trying to
A) work out with managers/casemanagers how to explain to courts the difference between just keeping an appointment and having a one to one RAR session (never did bottom out that one ) and B) wondering on what proper legal basis a breach of an order could be pursued once that designated RAR days had been discharged. 

As far as I was ever aware a Judge or Magistrate passing a sentence treated RAR days as essentially the same as unpaid work, once the requirement is done, in effect that's it. Surely this must have been the initial intention from the outset otherwise precluding "supervision" as a ongoing requirement would be totally pointless. I do appreciate that to attend initial inductions and like appointments are part of any community order or SSO, but to continue insisting on attendance up to the end seems bizarre and contrary to commonsense. Both those sentencing and those sentenced should be clear as to exactly what they are signing up for. MoJ as ever produce darkness where there should light.

******
Offender Rehabilitation Act 3 (1) "In this Part “rehabilitation activity requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that, during the relevant period, the offender must comply with any instructions given by the responsible officer to attend appointments or participate in activities or both."

This means we ignore both PI 58/2014 and the new guidance above which are incorrect. Appointments and activities are both included in the RAR. When the RAR ends so does contact with the offender. Any appointments offered after the RAR end are voluntary and not enforceable. I've seen many breaches deemed illegal on this basis.

******
ORA is badly worded but it does appear to distinguish between "appointments" and "activities" under a RAR. Whereas the number of days are prescribed under a RAR, appointments are unlimited. The confusion arises when RAR is being completed by using one to one "appointments" with officers (rather than "instructions" to attend all these marvellous new innovative activities alluded to). I suspect this is happening quite a lot. Then, from this interpretation, once the RAR is completed, Orders are probably lying around stagnant with nothing happening until expiry date (which is fixed in court). 

The MoJ appears to be correct in their albeit unclear communication style. Once RAR activity days are completed, if there is a gap of time between completion of RAR and expiry of Order, (two distinct situations), the Order should either be taken back to court on grounds of good progress, or appointments be issued until the end of Order to monitor risk etc. In my view difficulties have arisen because privately owned companies inevitably view court orders as belonging to them to play with as they please. The Orders don't belong to them, they belong to the court. They are implemented and enforced on behalf of the court. This is the shocking, foreseeable consequence of privatising justice. Fat cats seeing themselves as above the law, literally.

******
It all seems so obvious to the rest of us. My immediate thoughts went to the E3 shite, that has made the main driver of sentencing - speed - striving originally for 90% of reports being done on the day - subsequently reduced to 70%...from my own experience this results in stand alone SSO's, UPW or a Curfew - nobody works with the individual to overcome barriers to compliance - they are just numbers and if they fail, the service is seen to fail so either - no reports are made or they are put before a breach court to be dealt with inappropriately as described above. Compliance starts with the first contact with a service - if it is make shift and shoddy - we shouldn't be shocked when that is how the order/sentence is treated.

******
ORA & supervision for everyone has simply collapsed the CJS & any possibility of effective/meaningful rehabilitative intervention. Risk averse incompetents running Trusts had ensured the breach system was disappearing up its own fundament even before the privatisation catastrophe brought the roof down.

******
Actually what collapsed the CJS & any possibility of effective/meaningful rehabilitation is the silly policies of building new (Titan) prisons, privatisation of probation and the ever increasing police state!

******
TR has created a ticking time bomb nationwide. I work in the NPS and the failings are appalling due to the constant disruption. It's only a matter of time before the next victim. It's soul destroying working in this atmosphere.

******
On this information alone I do not think the Probation Officer should be blamed. The focus should be on the organisation rather than the individual. Condolences to the family of the deceased. The reality is we are paid to see offenders for 30 mins or less every week, fortnight or month. Our training has been long removed from social work, the degree element slowly eroded, time for reflection and learning replaced with high caseloads, bad pay, deteriorating terms and conditions, understaffing, no resources, etc, etc.

******
Totally agree. Despite the chaos created by TR, this officer is on the ball and pro-active. A SUMMONS was issued and court date set. Being a YOI Licence this person could NOT have been immediately recalled in the same way as adults on license. If I am wrong about that please let me know. The error here is with police releasing an individual presenting as a risk. Evidence available. Why not charged and remanded? For me, that's the unanswered question. If anything, the only person doing anything of any value here was the case manager.

******
In the Hanson and White, Anthony Rice and Sonnex cases, the Probation Inspectorate carried out independent reviews. In this case you have a private company investigating itself which undermines natural justice. This present case has wide ramifications that involves the police, prisons, mental health and probation; there are inter-agency protocols that should be impartially assessed. This tragedy was preventable and until there is an independent inquiry and clear recommendations for future practice, the risks of further tragic outcomes will remain.

******
The newly appointed PSOs in my NPS office are being allocated the most inappropriate cases mainly because there's no one else to take them. They've had little or no training and some of them are so stressed with the worry they are going home and crying! We are trying to support them but no time really.

******
Same in my office sadly. Managers also at risk as they have to decide to give cases to PSO's on competence. Supposedly. However, they are then being told they MUST give PSO staff some cases to ease the pressure on PO's, or else. The PSO's have had little training at all and they are supervising medium risk cases that have just only reduced to medium. Many were high risk only a short time ago. Whilst they are capable individuals generally and will make good PSO's, it does concern me if something goes wrong. We rarely have time or the inclination to support them. And we will not train them either to be fair. SFO's are now far from the norm. Admin all got bumped up to act up PSO's as well which left us with temps who had no idea what they were doing as no-one left to train them. Breaches and recalls falling down and collapsing as a consequence. I do know of one death that may have been avoided were the Courts to jail the SU on the second breach. A breach has become pointless and meaningless to the Courts and SU's also. It's the whole CJS that needs a shake really. Communication between agencies is poor as all services in a similar sorry state.This sad story, not the first and it will not be the last.

******
Mappa process also gone pear shaped. Just an SPO and a DI arguing over stuff then setting all actions for POs. No more shared agency views. No more supporting decision making. Plus hardly any level 2 or 3 these days. Most normal agency management after a number crunching paper exercise. Lost all meaning and respect.

******
Correction.....Substitute PO with PSO. A PO was not providing supervision with Working Links. The PSO was clerical and not trained to do the job, neither was the Manager who was also not a trained PSO or PO. Working Links have now removed 240 jobs and regrading staff removing the job of Probation Support officer to reduce pay and experience required to undertake the role. As of last week it was said all regrading has to take place by the 31st March 2017. So have lessons be learned?

******
I've been knocking around since the days of the SER. When I first came across these, I was impressed, and also bemused. These long, detailed documents were of terrific value to probation staff who went on to supervise the client, but rarely read by the magistrates, who would go straight to the last paragraph. So the rationale for producing something shorter and less detailed prior to sentencing makes sense IF...IF the same time and attention is given to analysis and research after sentence, a whole working day was the time allowance as I recall. The system whereby this was required by the court prior to sentencing safeguarded the allocation of the necessary resources and time.

******
"To avoid adjournment, a PSR should ideally be done on the same day." Firstly, amazing how what is ideal changes, irrespective of evidence, secondly, when it comes to courts losing time, the judiciary have a monopoly. This same day ideal is on a par with that other fallacy of £46-pounds-in-your-pocket. The Sentencing Council is stuffed with sinecurist's and other time servers, who follow the ideology of the day rather than what constitutes good practice. If the PSR hadn't been so degraded over the years, we may, for example, have fewer mentally-ill languishing and deteriorating in overcrowded prison.

******
We lost this fight years ago. The fallacy that you need a full OASys to do a full report came up against the last, now almost 7, years of austerity. First you break the link between a full assessment and a PSR. So "Simple cases" can be done on the day. Then you decide that you can get partly trained PSO's (Sorry all you PSO's out there but there IS a difference between a PO and a PSO and that difference is AUTONOMY and the trust of the Organisation) to do those "simple PSR's". Then you gradually erode what is not a "SIMPLE" PSR shoehorning more and more complex cases into that category. Then you realise that the quality is dropping but rather than address this decide that it is all about SPEED of delivery. Therefore you start setting "Stretch" on the day targets. Then you jump that target from 50% to 75% to 90% to "The expectation is that ALL will be delivered on the day". Then you recognise that the whole process adds nothing to sentencing because the reports are done on a conveyor belt.

This will only be reversed now when a mistake is made of such magnitude that somebody who is either 1 Important (Monckton for example) 2 Media catnip (So someone young and blonde and pretty, that usually does it) Is killed by some psychopath in court for a drink drive offence that a cursory examination of the records would have showed that there were bigger problems. Even then if it can be pinned on the poor sap who wrote the report then it will be business as usual. We are fucked, get used to it.

******
I am a court probation officer. For those of my colleagues who do not work in the court setting, just to advise it is horrendous and a disaster waiting to happen. Complex mental health and DV reports done in the space of 20 minutes if you are lucky! This is a shameful indictment of government directives and a lack of backbone by the judiciary to accept this watered down service not to mention potentially dangerous state of affairs that has been created. Anyone remember reflective practice? What refuse bin has that been consigned to? Henry Ford would be proud of the mass produced, conveyor built system of dealing with peoples lives that currently exists in the courts. I am truly ashamed to be a part of this despicable system. I feel contaminated like I have sold myself for 30 pieces of silver which I know I have done. I want out but I have children to feed and a mortgage to pay.

******
Once not that long ago the end to end offender management idea placed value on the PO being involved with the SU right from the start of entry of SU into CJS and though the order to the exit of the SU. Sometimes the PO would follow the SU through the process 2 or 3 times before the SU eventually found his/her feet in a non offending lifestyle. As I perceived it at the time, this approach did involve the SU in the promise he was making to the court to avoid offending. Also the SU would be more closely involved in deciding how he would do that. 

From the PO's point of view there was a real commitment to supporting the SU to succeed. The conversations between the SU and the PO in supervision were real because they had entered into a contract together at the court stage. The mags/judges would be more inclined to follow proposals as they were able to see that contract in front of their eyes in court. They perceived this was genuine and it made them trust us more. They were more patient with us and with the SU when there was re-offending or a breach. They understood better that for someone to stop offending is a process requiring a huge effort and focus on the part of the SU as well as on the part of those who try to support the SU to make those changes. 

I used to encourage all involved at PSR stage to see it as a creation of a contract between SU, supervising PO and court, one where all parties are accountable. And for a brief season it worked for me and for my SUs. I believe that as things are now the SU would struggle to see the point of their all too brief PSR assessments, the PSR authors become less able to make good proposals as many now have no experience of supervising a SU through an order and the supervising staff as mentioned by others here struggle to establish a useful starting point in their supervision in terms of working relationship. The mags and judges must feel every day that the current system is too full of holes, as many SU appear in their courts at an ever faster pace with no real explanation of the work that has been done with them so far.

******
Oral reports, CAS documents and RSRs not worth the paper they are written on. Yet another myth of TR ignored by unions. NPS, though no fault of their own, are not assessing risk and are not providing risk management plan's, CRCs shot in front, back, head, toe and sides.

******
By virtue of the short form PSRs, and no other arrangement for full assessment and analysis, CRC not given the information they need, and by virtue of absolute crap contracting and commissioning, not delivering what the shoddy court reports promise. Downward spiral, and its leading to ire between previous colleagues/comrades across the CRC-NPS divide, when we should be united in laying the blame squarely at the door of the Minister, and his successor(s).

******
That is the nub of it: the PSRs are written in haste, which might be excusable if the follow up supervision and interventions were invested in and effectively delivered. Internet sex offenders now not to go on to group programme. In my area there is a waiting list for the programme of over a year, at which point the motivation and engagement is waning. Haven't had time to check out the new one-to-one intervention for the internet (specifically Thornton low risk) men, but I get a whole day's training on that shortly, so that's all sorted (not). Cheapskate justice, and lamentable cuts, dictated by a department that doesn't know its private parts from its arm joints.

******
Magistrates have no sway over what happens at higher policy level as regards probation reports. MA unable and National Bench Chairman's Forum too busy with their own aggrandisement (IMHO) to make much fuss about this - though magistrates would probably be the last to know if they did. It may be odd to say it, but magistrates now have relative less input into sentencing so probably find longer probation reports less valuable. Sentencing guidelines make the direction of travel fairly obvious. On the community order/custody cusp there will be valuable input from probation and defence. Otherwise, magistrates have little idea what RAR entails and no say over what it should entail, so why be particularly interested in the characteristics of the defendant that it may address? The questions for which answers are needed have become quite straightforward:
Will RAR be useful: yes/no
What activity (eg drugs) will help?
Can the defendant do unpaid work or curfew? 

It is surprising how often there is no recommended punitive element that there must be in a sentence. Sentencers are often left scrabbling around for something to put in to make the sentence even vaguely match the seriousness of the offence. I should say I think this is a structural failure, not of the excellent POs and PSOs found in court.

******
I wholeheartedly would be behind the abolition of NOMS. This agency is a complete waste of tax payers money and creates nothing but bureaucracy for us on the front line trying to actually do our job. Just the thought of no more ignored emails and only them contacting me when it suits them must be a good thing. Go back to parole clerks in prisons - they know each case inside out and a firm point of contact with consistency. Cheaper, more efficient without the added NOMS b****cks bureaucracy. Shame its taken so long for even a sniff of getting rid of this farcical organisation.

******
Where does this leave probation? NOMS was a mess, we know that, but nobody seems to know who will run/lead Probation or whether it will be Probation friendly. We don't want to be left as a department of the HM Prison Service and poor relation of the Civil Service. Local councils and Police and Crime Commissioners may stake their claim on probation in due course but are not the answer either. NPS directors are complicit in all of this which means we will get no answers until the damage is already done.

******
"However you organise accountability at the centre, public safety outcomes across probation, prison and courts are intrinsically linked." Not really, no, Mr Lawrence. They're linked to each other no more than they're linked to the CPS and defence solicitors, or to housing departments, social services and the Parole Board. As with all of these agencies/organisations, the Probation Service has worked best when left alone as a separate agency/arm of the Criminal Justice System and away from the meddling of ministers, prison governors and CEO's.

******
Unlike those who seem to dream of a brave new world dawning ("We welcome the Secretary of State stepping up and looking to break the cycle of failure and crisis") I sense Jim is pointing out that the more likely scenario is nothing will change except the name. It will be the same topline of prison bullies, with maybe one or two casualties of early retirement & a generous £thank-you-bonus, the same Tory buffoons and the same blinkered agenda that leaves CRC staff in crisis & NPS staff in full harness.

Deckchairs Due For Reshuffle

News started breaking a couple of days ago that time was finally being called on NOMS - aka Nightmare On Marsham Street - with its abolition due for announcement by the Minister next Tuesday. Its demise has certainly been presaged on this blog more than once and to many will merely confirm that probation will be totally subsumed under Prison Service control.  Joe Kuipers was quick to respond on twitter:- 

"If so, prison will continue to rule the roost to the detriment of work in the community. Opportunity to redress imbalance will be missed." 

"Already merged and probation already under prison control. Rebadging exercise."

I see Napo's General Secretary made it the subject of his Friday blog, in the process earning this twitter accolade from PrisonStorm:-

"Some of the most eloquent speculation we've ever read." 

Is the number up for NOMS?

More often than not, beleaguered Government Ministers are regularly asked to do the exact opposite. It's an occupational hazard for anyone in charge of anything of course, but heading up one of the most powerful departments of state brings big responsibilities.

Napo's interface so far with the Secretary of State and the Probation and Prison Minister Sam Gyimah confirmed that they were embarking on a tough mission designed to repair the damage caused by Chris Grayling and which Michael Gove never quite had time to address as he succumbed to naked ambition and the ultimately unattainable prospect of becoming primus inter pares.

Anyway, this is past and recent history and it’s what is going to happen next that we await with baited breath.

Napo has long argued that even before the disastrous Transforming Rehabilitation experiment, the NOMS infrastructure, and its very purpose in life if I am being honest, were in dire need of review or abolition. Let me make it absolutely clear that this is not to question the skill, commitment and sheer hard work that individual staff and Napo members have made and are making to the organisation, but as Agencies go, NOMS is still seen as a bureaucratic and prison centric mish-mash of command structures that were problematical in themselves many years ago and which, in probation terms at least, have simply been unable to hack it post TR.

Governments have a habit of creating agencies in reaction to a perceived problem without having first thought through how that Agency would necessarily solve the problem. NOMS is a good example. It has always been a barrier between the Ministers and the MoJ and front line delivery – an extra set of people to blame if and when something went wrong. Grayling went a step further to compound all this by privatising as much as he could get away with, making strategic co-ordination even more challenging.

An example of just one of the difficulties that NOMS through the NPS faces is implementation of E3. It is a business model that ought to have been in existence at the time of the staff split that presaged TR, but it was not; and the NPS is playing catchup to get staff in the places it needs them and at the same time seeks to dilute professional standards to get the job done more quickly and cheaply. Its classic austerity driven business engineering of the like that has floundered or failed elsewhere and it will take a lot to convince our members that it won’t go the same way.

Napo is doing its best to engage with this challenging agenda and while we appreciate the efforts being made by our NOMS counterparts to respond to the myriad issues that members are regularly asking us to take to them, I often feel that they are swimming against an increasingly fierce tide with little sign of a lifeboat appearing any time soon.

Not that their parent department are exactly a raging success, but if Ministers have decided to adopt a radical approach to reform or even scrap NOMS, then it’s unlikely that there will be any tears shed amongst our members out there at the sharp end.

Merging prisons and probation?

If abolition happens then what would be put in its place? It would be great to think that a separate MoJ agency covering Prisons and Probation might emerge which would hopefully have the right mix of managerial and professional skills to get a real grip on the perennial problem of prison overcrowding and post sentence recidivism and an expectation that Government will grasp the opportunity it presents for inclusive, outcome focused strategic reflection.

However you organise accountability at the centre, public safety outcomes across probation, prison and courts are intrinsically linked.

You will only solve the prison crisis by reducing the number of people sent to prisons. You only do this by placing rehabilitation, and probation, at the heart of everything you’re seeking to achieve.

We welcome the Secretary of State stepping up and looking to break the cycle of failure and crisis. We look forward to continuing the dialogue around operational reforms that will bring better, safer outcomes for our members and the public – starting with urgently addressing probation pay reform; bringing clarity and stability to the contracts with the CRC’s; and inclusive development of a new Offender Management in Custody strategy built around strong rehabilitation principles that will deliver better, safer outcomes for offenders, staff and the public.

Watch this space.

--oo00oo--

I think this analysis, left earlier today, is much more likely:-

Aye, dear reader, 'tis the well-rewarded wormtongues within Noms who be behind all of probation's woes, whispering poisonous words into the ears of ministers and their aides. It never suited Noms to be burdened with the irritating troublesome "low risk" cases, but they always wanted to involve themselves with the "high risk" stuff. Notice how the more complex cases in custody always became the 'property' of prison psychology? Notice how many Noms staff would be involved with parole hearings? How quickly Noms wanted prison staff to be running OMUs within prisons, to be hands-on with OASys rather than on the wings, but how keen they were for other agencies to organise the more 'mundane' release plans, accommodation, etc.

This misguided power-hungry ambition has contributed to fewer prison staff on the wings, an increase in less experienced staff in prisons, the demise of probation and the introduction of the calamitous TR programme.

The remnants of probation remaining in public hands will now be totally absorbed by the Noms structure but I predict the new organisation will be given a new name - one which reflects the shift from "executive agency" to "government department", ensuring Spurr and his cronies achieve full Whitehall status and all of the benefits under a designated Minister. By the time he retires Spurr will have a gold plated platinum lined pension, a knighthood & as many non-executive positions as you can shake a riot baton at. THAT, dear reader, is the end-game.

Death of the PSR

From the latest Sentencing Council Guidlines:-

Pre-sentence reports 

In many cases, a pre-sentence report will be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a community order and, if so, whether particular requirements or combinations of requirements are suitable for an individual offender. Whenever the court reaches the provisional view that a community order may be appropriate, it should request a pre-sentence report (whether written or verbal) unless the court is of the opinion that a report is unnecessary in all the circumstances of the case. It may be helpful to indicate to the National Probation Service the court’s preliminary opinion as to which of the three sentencing ranges is relevant and the purpose(s) of sentencing that the package of requirements is expected to fulfil. Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case. If an adjournment cannot be avoided, the information should be provided to the National Probation Service in written form and a copy retained on the court file for the benefit of the sentencing court. However, the court must make clear to the offender that all sentencing options remain open including, in appropriate cases, committal for sentence to the Crown Court.

"Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case."

Does no one understand what a fundamentally important role the PSR should have in effective probation work? Did thousands of probation officers waste their bloody time over the last 30/40years, sweating over what we felt was a core aspect of the job, namely providing the court with an in-depth explanation for an offender's behaviour so that the court could sentence wisely? 

As soon as we got saddled with OASys, many of us realised the PSR was condemned to a slow death, and so it has proved - a vitally important piece of work, now sidelined and seen as merely a bureaucratic hindrance to the smooth running of our court system and routinely prepared by PSO's. Not a murmur of discontent from the judiciary, Magistrates Association, Law Society, Bar Council or Probation Institute - an utter disgrace!    

Latest From Napo 136

News from London:-

Member Newsletter February 2017

PAY UPDATE:

2016-17 Award - Members’ in the NPS should have already received their 1% annual increment or a one-off pensionable non-consolidated payment for 2016-17, arising from national discussions with NOMS and the trade unions. Members working for the CRC should receive the same payments in either February or March, depending upon how long it takes MTCnovo to calculate and process the awards. These are contractual and must be paid.

Members who have left during 2016-17 will receive a proportionate payment depending upon when they left. This will also, in all cases be, pensionable. If you have any questions or concerns please contact your local Napo representatives.

Napo’s 5 Key Pay Principles Campaign – In December, Napo launched our national pay campaign, to secure awards across the NPS and CRCs that address probation’s broken pay system. Our key principles are fairness, transparency, competitiveness and sustainability, allied to professionalism.

We are now asking members to lobby their MP’s highlighting the importance of providing the funding needed to support pay reform and highlighting how urgent this is, especially in expensive areas such as Thames Valley. Further information and support materials for the campaign are available on Napo’s website via www.napo.org.uk/campaigns

Napo will also be visiting large workplaces over the coming months to talk to staff about our pay and workloads campaigns (see below). Look out for announcements and emails from your local Napo representatives.

NNC BALLOT UPDATE:

Elected National Officers have met to decide how to respond to the indicative ballot on possible industrial action to defend existing national collective bargaining arrangements. The Elected Officers had assessed responses and agreed that there was not yet evidence of enough support to formally ballot for industrial action. Consequently, given all employers had now announced plans to end the NNC they had to decide whether or not to engage in negotiations with the NPS and owners like MTCnovo, or refuse to participate in local collective bargaining. By a majority they had agreed to engage in local collective bargaining, with full-time Napo Officials directly leading any negotiations around potential contractual changes. In such talks, Napo would argue for nationally agreed positions. For example, in 2017-18 pay negotiations Napo will produce a single national claim across all owners, before judging any offers against their local and national impact.

Since the AGM, local Napo representatives led by David Raho, supported by Assistant General Secretary Dean Rogers, have been discussing with MTCnovo possible arrangements for negotiations and consultation if the NNC were to cease. We are confident the structures proposed, which ensure contractual issues are negotiated jointly across London and Thames Valley, adequately protect existing contractual guarantees encompassed in the national Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement before the split. Consultation about non-contractual local policies and practices will continue to happen locally, as under the NNC structures, with Napo putting more resources into training and support for local Representatives than ever before. This is in reaction to the scale of local challenges, such as workloads, and because of the strain of negotiating with multiple owners. We are also encouraged by MTCnovo wanting to join a new national Probation Professional Partnership Forum which will discuss professional standards and practice.

WORKLOADS CAMPAIGN:

Napo are also about to launch our new 3C’s workload campaign. The key elements are:

• Confront high workloads
• Challenge employers to address them

Champion professional standards
To achieve these aims Napo will be arguing for appropriate workload measurement tools that work for all roles in all workplaces, including time for professional reflection, supported by the resources to maintain safe workloads and access professional training and development for all staff.

As a professional association as well as a union these themes are critical to Napo. To find out more about the campaign and what you can do to support and promote it go to www.napo.org.uk/campaigns

NAPO ENGAGED WITH MTCnovo TO IMPROVE STANDARDS IN LONDON:

Members in London were briefed in December about Napo’s proactive engagement with MTCnovo and the NPS about how they respond to the critical HMIP inspection report. This has continued, with regular briefings between local and national Napo representatives and senior CRC management. High on the priority list are monitoring practice and support around members having to address record keeping gaps arising from unsustainable workloads; monitoring workloads going forward and developing an accurate local workload management tool; and supporting recruitment. At national level Napo are pushing for more resources for probation to meet post TR expectations; greater clarity around the CRC contracts; and progress on national professional standards for all grades. To find out more and get engaged in these campaigns contact info@napo.org.uk

MANAGERS’ NETWORK:

An example of our continued engagement with MTCnovo is our involvement throughout consultations regarding restructuring of ACO roles and numbers, working closely with colleagues in SCOOP GMB. Napo recognise that pressures on all managers are extreme presently, giving rise to unique challenges and pressures. We also recognise managers at all levels can be caught in the middle and need somewhere safe to go to ask colleagues questions and raise concerns. This is why Napo have launched a new national Managers’ Network. If you’re a manager, or aspiring to be a manager, in any part of the probation service think about joining up. You can find out more via tburke@napo.org.uk

PLEASE SHARE THIS NOTE WITH COLLEAGUES WHO MAY NOT BE MEMBERS OF NAPO.

Remember you can get cheaper subs by paying directly through Direct Debit and can also access our extensive new Napo members’ Benefits Package and save the cost of membership in full.

Patricia Johnson (NPS) David Raho (CRC)
Terry Wilson (NPS) Karen Malan (CRC)

SFO Lessons to Learn 3

Here we have Carl Eve of the Plymouth Herald covering the latest news on the Tanis Bhandari case:-

'Tanis would still be alive today if system had not failed him'

Tanis Bhandari would still be alive today had there not been shocking failings in the way his killer was monitored, according to one Plymouth councillor. Philippa Davey launched an impassioned speech on the case at Monday's Plymouth City Council meeting, slamming the privatisation of the probation service which was supposed to be monitoring Donald Pemberton at the time he and Ryan Williams murdered Plymouth builder Tanis in Tamerton Foliot on New Year's Day 2015.

And she praised Tanis' family and The Herald for their work in exposing the errors, which are now due to be scrutinised in Parliament. Cllr Davey said: "A licence that stated he (Pemberton) had to be well behaved and not commit any offence. A breach of this licence could result in a recall to prison."

"Thanks to the perseverance of Tanis's family and the Plymouth Herald reporter Carl Eve, serious failings in the criminal justice system have been revealed. Failings that should not have happened, could have been avoided and have still not been resolved. Failings that pose a risk to the public in Plymouth and across the UK. It is a great shame that our MPs have failed to act immediately and it has taken a journalist, a grieving family and councillors to ensure action is taken to protect our residents."

Cllr Davey said Tanis' family had also been badly let down by the Ministry of Justice, Witness Care and Working Links Community Rehabilitation Company. She said: "The failure to advise them of their rights to the 'victim summary report' of the Serious Further Offence Review is just the start of a series of events which is, frankly, an insult to a grieving family seeking transparency and truth. The review of Working Links supervision of Pemberton was completed by another Working Links manager in the Bristol, Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire area. A private company, investigating itself – what could go wrong?"

"Well, let me tell you. The family were not made aware of their rights to see the victim summary report, Pemberton had been arrested on December 15th and there was CCTV showing him brandishing meat cleavers in public. On December 22nd, a week later, the probation officer received a report from Pemberton's mental health worker, on the 23rd she spoke to the mental health worker and learned of his arrest and that he had been bailed, she prepared a summons to court which would be heard on January 16th regarding the breach of licence."

"The report stated that although the probation officer (PO) was newly appointed to the role they had worked for several years in probation in another role. This is where the facts end and the glaring errors and omissions start. Working Links will not provide the evidence of the PO's experience, they have confirmed they did not receive the expected training, training that Working Links themselves expect staff to complete."

"Worse, there is no formal record of any risk assessment or risk management plan, no evidence of inter agency working, including information sharing with the police public protection unit and all of this should have been good working practice. "A deterioration in Pemberton's state of mental health should have rung alarm bells, for both his safety and that of the public."

"A risk assessment should have been completed on his deteriorating mental health and his behaviour on the night of the 15th December. His risk was rising, his behaviour was escalating and he could have been recalled, subject to curfew or electronic tag and Tanis's murder may have been prevented. Pemberton could have received the treatment he needed.

"But worse was to come. Tanis's family were contacted by Devon and Cornwall Police and received a detailed report which revealed a worrying gap in the computer systems police rely on, not just in Devon and Cornwall, but across the whole of England and Wales.

"Pemberton was released from Portland YOI [Young Offenders Institution] and no one had sent a copy of his licence to be entered on the Police National Computer. Apparently only cases serious enough for MAPPA [Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements], POP [Prolific Offenders Project] offenders or those on HDC [Home Detention Curfew] go automatically to the Bureau. The police could not access a copy of Pemberton's licence."

"The report also revealed the probation officer has been contacted by Pemberton's doctor on November 21 who had seen Pemberton 'who said he was paranoid and afraid of his father and was now keeping an axe under his bed'. The supervising officer called police as she was advised action under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act was required. After calling both 101 and 999 she was told he wasn't currently a risk."

"The report notes how inexperienced the officer was and that she had never been informed by the custody unit of anyone on supervision being arrested, usually finding out from CPS when they went to court. Although the report does not make a causal link between the failures and Tanis's murder it does note that if the licence had been available it is likely he would have remained in custody and been recalled to prison. He would not have been at liberty and Tanis could still be alive today."

"Another shocking revelation was that Devon and Cornwall Police computer system, does not extract a suspect's Custody History screen, meaning custody officers 'would not see any licence details held on a prisoner in custody as the data would not be available via the interface'. The same system is used by all forces so affects every member of the public. This should be rectified immediately as it is the custody officer who will make a decision on release."

"Finally, and again terrifyingly, affecting the whole of the UK, the failure to record all licence conditions on the PNC has meant that in a dip sample four out of 11 offenders have no licence recorded on PNC. That included sex offenders but could include a wide range of offenders. The police's internal report concluded there was 'every chance incidents similar to this case will recur' if no changes were made to current processes. This is where we have to act and to ask our MP's to act, now."

"In June 2014 you heard NAPO and other experts warn that the privatisation of probation would cause fragmentation of services, lead to unqualified and inexperienced staff supervising complex and risky offenders, put inter agency working at risk and would not improve re offending rates and would put the public at risk. The recent inspections of CRC's in London, Durham and Stoke show clearly that the public is at greater risk, offending has not reduced and targets are being missed. Working Links are yet to have an inspection but trying to shed hundreds of jobs, wanting to change their operational model which will dumb down the PO role, having staff off sick, stressed and demotivated does not bode well."

Cllr Davey urged members to vote for her motion, tabled on January 23, regarding concerns over the privatisation of the Probation Service and the findings of the Serious Further Offence review and the police's internal report, and to 'heed the warnings from 2014 and the two investigations into what could have been an avoidable loss of life'.

She said: "To ensure Tanis's family receive the truth they are entitled to and the public who we represent are protected from harm wherever possible. We have a duty and the ability to make sure that Safer Plymouth really does make Plymouth Safer and that all of our partners are doing all they can to achieve this. We can ensure this happens. It is in our power."

Her voice was joined by Labour's Southway ward councillor Jonny Morris who said: "It's important that the council publicly recognises the dignity and determination with which Tanis' family have pursued their cause. While their determination faced with such horrific events might be somewhat expected, their dignity goes beyond what could be expected."

Conservative Budshead ward councillor, Dave Downie, also spoke out in support of the motion. He said: "It's obvious there have been a series of systemic errors on a national level which have had tragic consequences locally. I am more than happy to support this motion."

The motion was voted through unanimously by council members.

As he promised earlier this year, Plymouth Moor View MP Johnny Mercer has raised the concerns posed by the police investigation into the death of Tanis Bhandari in a written question to Elizabeth Truss MP, Secretary of State for Justice.

On January 27 he asked: "What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the findings of the Devon and Cornwall Police inquiry into the murder of Tanis Bhandari that omissions in the recording of license conditions on the Police National Computer are likely to recur."

Mr Mercer's office said they expect an answer from the Justice Minister within the next few days. A spokesman for the MP said: "Johnny and his office continue to work with the family of Tanis Bhandari for their best outcome.

"He will continue to work with them to seek the publication of the Serious Further Offence Review, pending which he will seek a meeting the Minister responsible for probation with representatives of Tanis' family. The primary focus for Johnny in this is to ensure that the family of Tanis Bhandari receive the answers they are seeking, as it would be for any of his constituents. We thank Plymouth City Council for their assistance after Johnny raised this as a question in the House last week. Should they wish to get in touch regarding this case, they can do so via his office, the contact details of which are widely available."