With the election starting gun fired, Rob Allen speculates what it might mean for the criminal justice system, including possible 'curtains' for the MoJ and the Home Office getting prison and probation back! (It will be recalled they got the Fire Service back recently).
What's on the criminal justice cards from a new May government?
More shocking revelations on prisons, this time from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture who visited a range of detention facilities last year - Pentonville and Doncaster prisons and Cookham Wood YOI (as well as police stations, immigration detention centres and closed psychiatric hospitals). The report catalogues the depressing if familiar reality of prison conditions, finding none of the three establishments safe for prisoners or staff. The CPT found that locking children alone in their cell for all but half an hour a day amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. And they were concerned that incidents of violence was under recorded, particularly at SERCO run Doncaster.
It’s possible that the report will be the last of its kind. If Mrs May fulfils her wish to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, a new Conservative government will find itself with a BREXIT 2 to negotiate. The Council of Europe may be the smallest of beer compared to the EU but it’s the continent’s leading human rights organisation. We may find ourselves sharing observer status with Belarus. But at least we won’t have to worry about letting prisoners vote.
What else might we see from a new Conservative government on the justice and prison front? There’s quite a bit from the 2015 manifesto that hasn’t been achieved. The promise of new technology is as yet undelivered, whether to monitor offenders in the community, to bring persistent offenders to justice more quickly or allow women with small children to serve sentences in the community. Perhaps thankfully there is no sign of the new semi-custodial sentence for prolific criminals, allowing for a short, sharp spell in custody to change behaviour; nor of extensions to the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Will we see these commitments reappear in this year’s manifesto or will they be quietly shelved? What will happen to plans for increasing penalties for driving offences which result in fatalities?
At least one commentator thinks that the 2015 manifesto is the enemy Mrs May wishes to slay. If he is right, there is no guarantee that the prison reform measures contained in the Prison and Courts Bill will necessarily reappear. For those with long memories, the post 1992 Major Government rapidly undid the liberal justice reforms it inherited. The counterpoint of recent headlines about prisons no longer being places for punishment and violent crime surges could easily prompt a harder approach on criminal justice in the new manifesto. Despite the flowing oratory of Michael Gove and process re-engineering of Liz Truss, the ghost of Michael Howard has never been far from the feast. While Mrs May is difficult to pigeonhole, I've always doubted whether her appetite for rehabilitation and redemption will have been sharpened by six years in the Home office - famously described by Peter Hennessy as the graveyard of liberal thinking since the days of Lord Sidmouth.
The CPT emphasised that unless determined action is taken to significantly reduce the current prison population, the regime improvements envisaged by the authorities’ reform agenda will remain unattainable. I wouldn’t put money on that. The best we can hope for is perhaps a steady state. Although if I were a betting man, I’d put a flutter on the dismantling of the Ministry of Justice. It’s quite conceivable that prisons and probation will return to the Home Office. The Tories have always thought of the MoJ as a European construct ill-suited to our traditions. Prepare to welcome back the Lord Chancellor’s Department.
Thursday, 20 April 2017
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Probation by Telephone - The Verdict
With the Probation Review and matters of general prison reform now almost certainly side-lined by the impending general election, the latest damning inspection report into the on-going TR omnishambles is not likely to get much attention.
Foreword
The published performance figures for probation services have their limitations. Latest figures suggest that the NPS Wales is performing below average, but in fact we found strong leadership, motivated staff, readily manageable workloads and some excellent NPS work in Gwent. The big issue for NPS Wales is that the quality of work varies, place by place, yet if all offices could deliver the high quality of work done by the NPS in Newport, then more individuals would be helped more effectively, to change their lives for the better.
We found a more troubling picture at the CRC. More than two years after Transforming Rehabilitation, the operating model is still changing, and staff are anxious and no doubt long for stability.
Seasoned Transforming Rehabilitation observers have long feared that CRCs would cherry pick, investing little in those most likely to reoffend, but instead the Working Links approach is to scale supervision, with the most intensive supervision for the most challenging individuals, and to work in local community hubs that also provide a range of services to the community at large. We were impressed with the community hub, in practice. For the one in four people assessed as low risk, however, their supervision while in the community is scaled back to a telephone call every six weeks, albeit one in three of these should also have contact with unpaid work supervisors or other interventions staff, assuming those arrangements work as intended.
In our view, this means too many people get too little attention. Without meaningful contact, individuals are most unlikely to develop a will to change. What is more, as individuals’ circumstances change, so can the risk of harm they present to the public. Staff are unsure about the model, with their views no doubt influenced to an extent by the downsizing exercise underway. Implementation is taking a long time, and some aspects of the model are not working as they should. Staff morale is low, and sickness absence alarmingly high, yet (as I have come to expect) we found committed responsible officers working hard to support service users.
The CRC’s published performance figures show it performing relatively well. What gets measured gets done, of course, but sometimes at a cost to other work that should be done, as we found here. With not enough service user plans actually followed through, and with staff numbers reducing substantially, it is hard to avoid concluding that despite good intentions, simple affordability considerations and an overpowering need to balance the books is driving priorities in this CRC.
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
April 2017
--oo00oo--
Frances Crook of the Howard League is characteristically forthright in their press release:-
The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation’s report on adult probation services in Gwent, published today (Wednesday 19 April).
The report states that the publicly-run National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for supervising people deemed to present a high risk of reoffending, was performing well overall. However, the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC), owned by Working Links, and tasked with managing medium- and low-risk cases, was criticised by inspectors.
The inspection team said that the CRC’s work was driven by “an overpowering need to balance the books”, with supervision of some people scaled back to just a phone call every six weeks.
Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:
--oo00oo--
Frances Crook of the Howard League is characteristically forthright in their press release:-
The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation’s report on adult probation services in Gwent, published today (Wednesday 19 April).
The report states that the publicly-run National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for supervising people deemed to present a high risk of reoffending, was performing well overall. However, the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC), owned by Working Links, and tasked with managing medium- and low-risk cases, was criticised by inspectors.
The inspection team said that the CRC’s work was driven by “an overpowering need to balance the books”, with supervision of some people scaled back to just a phone call every six weeks.
Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:
“The break-up of the public probation service, with a large part of it handed to 21 private companies, was supposed to turn lives around, reduce reoffending and make us all safer. Today’s report, however, indicates that this has failed in Gwent, increasing the risk to the public and letting down people who are trying to change their lives. A general election is only seven weeks away, and one of the first challenges for a new government will be to sort out this mess.It is time to end the dangerous experiment of ‘community rehabilitation companies’ and return to the single, successful, probation service that we used to have.”
Monday, 17 April 2017
Pick of the Week 24
As we wait and see if the rumours are true regarding the long-awaited Probation Review being kicked into the long grass of Autumn, here are some powerful contributions that particularly caught my eye over the last week or so:-
Morning fellow blogees and what a great weekend to reflect on the failures of the prison and probation 'reforms'. I am sure most of us would agree that 'reform' is just a pseudonym for enormous financial cuts in this time of austerity. There is no actual reform is there..nothing that could be described as an actual improvement to services. Here is a snapshot of 'reform' to the management of offenders in the community over the past 25 years from someone who has recently taken early retirement.
Remove our professional qualification and take social work out of probation. Let's face it the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work was more representative of our job which incorporates many aspects of social work, working with mental health, drugs and alcohol, domestic violence, child protection...bread and butter of social workers. Concentrating on only criminology or even psychology is missing the major environmental factors that are in need of change. Society v individual as the cause of crime. This government would prefer to blame the individual rather than focus on failings of society.
Creation of PSO's as opposed to fully qualified PO only. Ok I know this is contentious. I actually think there IS a role for PSO's and have worked with many in my time but it is a bit like teaching assistants in schools. Until they are accredited fully and have years of experience behind them they need close supervision and support. They should not be employed and then immediately given large caseload of low to medium risk offenders which is what happens now. It is similar to the news recently with large numbers of classroom assistants left in charge of classes. Gradual erosion of professional standards is not good for anyone. Just because you don't need a professional qualification to be an MP it doesn't mean other professions don't or do. We want to go back to the days of asking the barber to stitch a wound or pull teeth?!
Loss of community reporting offices and day centres. Gone are the days when you knew your local area and everyone operating services there. Some staff were running services voluntarily such as football groups or groups for women on probation. It wasn't cute n cuddly social work, it was a lifeline for some people who have told me years later in the street how much it meant to them! Now service users have to travel miles to get to a central office or 'hub' which seems to be the new fangled word!
Groupwork: groupwork rose to prominence but never replaced one to one work entirely. 2 years ago there were about 8 different groups in my area but post privatisation they have shrunk to about 4 and I am told even lower now as staff running them have left and need to train people up. Doesn't sound like progress to me.
RAR days! Hmmmm..do magistrates really know what a RAR day is I wonder? Surely this is just basic one to one supervision or a group which is what we were doing anyway when we had the time. A trip to the jobcentre? Come on! People would be doing that anyway.. just a renaming if you ask me!
Management. What was wrong with having one SPO managing one office! Worked for me but now TR means running around like a headless chicken supervising staff at 2 or even 3 offices and failing miserably.
Training. If it's free book staff on, if it costs forget it! No more in house training unit. So who is doing the basics such as managing risk, working with sex offenders? Ok, CRC don't work with sex offenders! Except when it is historical! Dodgy that!
Could go on for ever here! Anyway I'm off to mow the lawn on this sunny day and ponder the meaning of life. Back to work on Monday, early retirement doesn't mean you can't get another job but you can hopefully choose to do something a whole less stressful.
******
"Supervision" rolled far more easily off the tongue in court, rather than "rehabilitation activity requirement", and far more straightforward to explain in terms of the Act and its practical application. I sometimes wonder whether these ridiculous changes are intended to fudge and confuse, all the easier to create an impression of something being done. What is a RAR day? I still don't know. How long does it last? If one is missed, does it require making up? Is there some mystical corner of ND that I've (easily) so far missed that shows how many RAR days have been completed on an ongoing order?
******
What is a RAR day? Same goes for Post Sentence Supervision. Poorly defined concepts, poorly integrated and in consequence practitioners, managers and so called businesses alike confused and uncertain. Justice Committee sensibly asks for clarity on Prison Reform lest it be the dog's breakfast that is TR.
******
RAR days = professionals running around like headless chickens ticking boxes and (forced to make some up if not enough are ticked), delivering meaningless interventions all so that the paymasters can get paid. Maybe this should be put in all PSRs when judges and magistrates ask for explanations as to what we do on RAR days.
******
Just had a bizarre dream series where CRCs had been forced to hand contracts over to Citizens Advice Bureaux, and "community rehabilitation" was being delivered in libraries & train station cafes by freelance "advisors" who were paid in cash after downloading their contact details via a laptop into a CAB mobile server mounted in the boot of a white Volvo V70.
******
The answer, is 'No.' No-one has noticed - including politicians, journos, etc - because no-one really gives a rats arse. Probation-as-was was always under the radar, low key, understated, modest to the point of clinically shy. On a number of occasions this blog has highlighted the path of probation's demise, from 1992 & the CJAct which turned probation into a political plaything, through the cessation of SW training in 1995/6, NOMS in 2003, Trusts in 2007 to the implementation of TR in 2013. NAPO lost its way from 2005 on as NOMS's stranglehold tightened & Trusts were hatched, with Ledger metaphorically & literally fumbling in the dark.
I've been out of the profession for some time now but I had chance to have conversations with some who are either still hanging on or more recently departed, and they have revealed shocking conditions in which people are working - bullying, incompetence, lying, no equipment, no management, no office, dismissals, people frog-marched out of offices... These are all things written about on this blog at various times, but which I've now had first-hand accounts of. It is monstrous how the privateers are behaving towards staff and clients.
One conversation was with an ex-colleague, now a senior manager, who thinks it's all just fine & dandy. They seemed well, positive, content and spoke enthusiastically about their achievements in the CRC......interestingly, and without fail, that same person was named by others as a "major local problem" - variously referred to as a bully, a braggart who refuses to listen, rarely in the office, blames staff for everything, a liar & a fraud.
A gaping chasm has opened up... is that where the simple truth has gone? Everywhere I look these days there are several varieties of truth. Take the US strikes on Syria. 59 tomahawk missiles were fired, but that's the only fact people can agree on. US say 58/59 landed on target. Russia say 23/59. Etc, etc...So Grayling's truth is not my truth - that much I do know!
******
It's clearly time for a blog special on the fiasco/failure/debacle/disaster that is Interserve's Cheshire and Manchester (and Merseyside, let's not pretend that's really separate) CRC - the very embodiment of cynicism with its institutional disdain for the real needs of its client group and a venomous contempt for the professional and personal integrity of what remains of its workforce.
******
Off Piste I know... but you need an update on the lunacy that is Interserve and the now fabled Interchange Model....The CEO, young Mr Edwards and his now infamous blog; his updates have somehow managed to conflate the abject failure of Interserve to manage one of their contracts in their core role as facility management and subsequent loss of revenue with the service credits accrued by MCRC and CMCRC which are currently running in excess of 100 thousand pound sterling. How he manages to compare the failure to clean a toilet to a satisfactory standard with the production of an ISP that has a Risk Management Plan and good sentence plan in the same breath is bewildering at best...
He completely ignores; or if I am being kind; he cannot compute the serious high sickness rates, coupled with PSOs/POs leaving in droves... in tandem with those clueless Directors (ACOs) Interchange Managers (SPOs) who think that by cascading an email untouched or not explained sent from on high with a single note saying "Please action". Knowing the attachment being one of those heavy duty many-paged documents they want you to pick the bones out of and somehow implement... and you know what the coal face does... F9 Delete....
If you can't be bothered to even try to explain in plain English what you want then it does not deserve my attention.... Off piste again with that rant but the latest offering from Interserve is that they want the flex teams (Pods, teams, units, in old money) to sort out amongst themselves, without any management oversight, no direction, no leadership, to reallocate case which may show as failing targets or cases that are 'drifting'. They want us to meet as flex team each week without any management involvement .. review their super duper Service Level Spreadsheets which are monitored by the poor old Case Coordinators (Case Admin, again in old money - there is a theme running here) and decide who should complete the ISP which is now too close to ignore as they are failing said target.
The reason that the target is failing my dear Christopher, is because the ridiculous central focused Professional Service Centres (PSCs) are allocating new case to case managers at the start of their leave. So when they return from leave they ae faced with immediate failures.... Now the PSCs will blame the IMs (SPOs - Do keep up!!) for not completing their staffing spreadsheets which show who is available and who is not... but when the IMs have gone off sick or are trying their collective best to learn how to be facility managers (lets be honest, that is what they have turned into) who is in charge? Are the lunatics now running the asylum?...
When I sit down and have a good old one to one with little Tommy Aikens during one of our RAR sessions (Reality = A good old supervision session in old money).. We both end up sharing the same comfort blanket to get through our day... Just another day in the life... interRUPT, interFERE, interGALACTICAL, interMITTENT but very little (inter)service..
******
Absolutely spot on - Mr E is far too removed to actually care about staff - on one of his visits to offices where he wanted to be viewed as "a listener/doer/caring" all he kept banging on about was when "everything was working effectively then it would make life easier to be a offender manager" we told him to come back when this was actually happening and that due to the failure of the Interserve model and the stresses associated with it, all staff were dropping like flies or hanging on by our finger nails - I'm sure this was resonated by staff in all offices he visited - the management of Interserve are like the 3 monkey's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" - so much for their motto "every one has a voice" - well as long as you're saying what they want to hear!!
******
I don't know how Chris can carry on being so deceitful, its like he knows the service has failed and can't offer anything to the staff but instead of admitting it he carry's on spouting nonsense. I used to think he was okay when he worked for the trust, but he has turned out to be a right pillock. Both him and his wife are doing very well thank you out of interswereve.
******
If I could afford to leave Interserve's Manchester CRC I'd be gone today. While staff are being run into the ground by unmanageable caseloads and impossible and pointless targets and deadlines the managers - sorry I mean 'executives' and 'directors' and 'Interchange managers' - are busy slapping each other on the back for the 'progress' we're making because they've rendered the already dismal working environment even more unpleasant by shutting most of the offices and making the remaining spaces look and feel like start-up call centres done on the cheap. If there are consultants who advise cut-throat companies on how to make job conditions so miserable that everyone will leave instead of having to be paid redundancy money, they're definitely working for Manchester CRC.
******
I totally agree. I too work within Manchester CRC - I would so love to be able to leave but my finances at present dictate otherwise - Chris Edwards blog this week was of no surprise telling staff that he was impressed by those using Skype in order to cut down on travel expenses (not sure who these people are skyping instead of face to face contact - offenders ?). I've also been waiting (since I read it some time ago) for the "we need to tighten our belts and not do anything to loose Interswerve any more money" - they can't even manage a waste contract adequately.
He also banged on about groups etc which we all know don't need half as many staff - I'm concerned and have been for some time (especially as Yvonne Thomas told the JSC that they didn't make as many cuts to staffing as they'd anticipated) that they will do so now they need to recoup their losses and nail them out of litigation (due to failed waste contract) - watch this space!! These really are bloody awful times and I totally agree that they want to shaft the experienced more expensive staff to be able to employ more niave inexperienced buggers on Interswerve contracts and T&C's whilst the exec, directors and the likes are of the belief that all in the garden is rosy - full of Interswerves waste Shit!
*****
I too would like to leave but can't afford to, however on some days I feel the salary does not add up to the horror and stress working for interswere. They are despicable. I knew the minute I was shafted to work for them that my career was over and that I no longer could uphold the values dignity and morals to help those that are most marginalised in society.
*****
Yes, it's like there are two Interswerve Manchester CRCs - the special magical Interswerve/Management version where just saying 'inter' five times transforms lives and everything's 'innovative' and 'exciting', and then the real one where the totally demoralised and ever-dwindling staff group are crammed into miserable call centre style offices designed to sap their will to live, while being expected to supervise sixty or seventy cases each with no resources apart from a laptop computer that only works every other day. It's Hellish, and better still it's clearly meant to be hellish so that we'll fuck off and make way for cheaper and more desperate and malleable staff.
*****
I think Interswerve are beating the battle on that front from the comments regularly made about them on this blog, it won be long before the odd few staff that are left will leave, you can only suffer for so long. They'll keep getting paid and our lives will continue to be made miserable. Maybe the only staff left will be managers and they can deliver their own worthless piece of shit that they call the interchange model.
*****
A little off topic but can I just stress again how much we loath and despise our clueless and morally bankrupt parasite paymasters Interserve, and how their bizarre notion that Probation staff would have the slightest interest in celebrating being a part of what they risibly try to term the 'Interserve family' only makes us hate them all the more... The 'Interserve family' might just be the most repugnant notion I've encountered in my working life....
*****
The chief executive of the Interserve owned Cheshire and Greater Manchester CRC today warned staff that Interserve's losses in their waste business mean that we as a CRC will now have to tighten our belts! Better still, in spelling it out he detailed how we are now expected to respond to Interserve's incompetence by...being of sick less!!
*****
And as for their 'Interchange model' - A list of words chosen purely because they start with the same five letters as 'interserve' is not a 'model', even if you have paid off a bunch of mercenary university hacks to pretend it is.
*****
Again back to one of my previous posts, the people that are banging the Interswerve drum are Probation staff (Snr Probation officers etc ) - Chris Edwards and his cronies who are narcissists with fragile egos that believe all their own hype and who's bank balances are so much more important than the people that they trained and used to work closely with! - Interswerve have obviously seen their greed and naivety as I'm sure when the going gets tougher Interswerve will (here's hoping) will kick them to the kerb like they've done with everything and everyone else they've touched.
*****
I too work for interswerve CGM - I agree in the fact that "most" but not all IM's are approachable, however quite a few now have no case manager experience (?) as they've been shafted into the role from being programme managers.
We received an email today highlighting the fact that NPS will no longer be loosening the shackles" and will be rejecting breaches for whatever reason, probably only known to them - numerous colleagues of mine have already experienced breach rejections/failures due to no fault of their own but reasons that the gatekeeping NPS team decided without liaising with said case manager.
The PSC's regularly get so many things wrong making life very difficult - the majority of staff I speak with feel that their job now entails more administrative duties due to the new model. Case loads are far to high (people have 60 - 100 cases) resulting in most staff being unable to prioritise as everything's a priority - it's a horrible feeling juggling plates like this knowing at some point you're going to drop a few (which could result in an SFO). Staff I know (I've been around quite a long time) experienced ones at that, have dropped like flies due to stress levels of holding so many cases (hearing a name and thinking 'who the hells that?', please tell me they're not on my case load).
*****
Just the word 'Interserve' makes my flesh crawl. 'Purple Futures' was bad enough, but Interserve have now abandoned even any pretence of leading a 'partnership'. They plainly don't give a fuck about Shelter still taking our money and yet barely even bothering even to pretend to provide a meaningful 'Through the Gate' service. No one knows who 3SC are or what the fuck they even claim to do. P3 operate a criteria whereby they only provide support to clients who can demonstrate that they don't need it and otherwise it's just Interserve Interserve Interserve all the way. Better still, despite their transparent efforts to deprofessionalise our service, they seem to have some bizarre notion that we might somehow respect their filthy money-grubbing organisation and in some way be pleased or even proud to be a part of their 'Interserve family'. Their efforts to try and make us believe that they are our 'friend' or that they could give a damn about the people we work with truly make me want to vomit. Do they really not understand that as a workforce we have nothing but contempt for them and for everything they stand for? Fuck Interserve.
*****
Seeing Interswerves "Ingenuity at work" signs on everything makes me feel incensed!! Through the gate staff don't even have access to NDelius so have no bloody idea who they need to contact, hence "we" are told that we have to make contact with TTG staff in whatever prison with ALL our custody cases, which yet again is a massive task, also part of Interswerves Appraisal objectives!!
As part of Interswerves model we're supposed to have a "directory of local) services" run by 3SC which is not fit for purpose but supposedly we use them for RAR days as they are "supposed" to be services that are locally commissioned by PS3 to provide CRC's services (really?) - one service on there is "phone FRANK" again REALLY! I'm sure courts would love to hear that we completed RAR days by phoning FRANK! - I totally agree with you it make me ill, however what makes me feel worse are the management that were previously Probation Officers that have sold their soul's to Interswerve and now appear to have no sign of professional nor personal integrity.
*****
Well said. Interswerve are a deplorable company but always try to hide behind a made up image that they actually care. Do they seriously think that we are unable to see through their greedy bullshit. I wish they would F off and take their daft interchange model with them, they could try using it on their cleaning contracts.
*****
Here's the thing with PF/Interserve. MCRC now has such a terrible reputation with Crown Court judges, District Judges and lay Magistrates. It really is bubbling under the surface. Directors, or ACOs in old money, have been called to account by the Recorder and District Judges for such poor quality of cases not being managed. They are rapidly loosing confidence.. So the bemused directors cobble together a very telling email to staff outlining the 'reputational damage' this is causing and people need to sort this out as a matter of absolute importance. Essentially waving a big stick.
They, bless their poor corporate souls, fail miserably in recognising that the IT is so poor, the new PSOs are not trained, those poor sods have re located from admin, accommodation and HQ posts that were got rid of during the great run down of Trusts are now holding 70-80 cases with the most half-arsed on the job training, no idea about OASys sentence plans, RMPs, breach reports, evidence to support breaches, when to breach, HDC, ROTL etc etc etc.... Then, surprise surprise, these people leave in droves, and the cases left behind are by any standard in an absolute mess.
The good old boys and gels who now hold nice fancy titles like Interchange Director are literally clueless..... completely out of their collective depths. The so called DOS (Directory of Services) to support RAR activity..... well it is merely just a poor quality spreadsheet that is at best described as embarrassing and at worst... well its just criminal. So what do you do when you are handed another dozen or so re-allocated cases that on inspection really does turn your blood cold? You draw a line under the past management and move forward. Sod reputational damage if it is in a unrecoverable mess, then send it back from whence it came saying not in my name... or return it to court in your name but having to expose the mess..
This is left at PSO/PO level to sort with that great management default phase ringing in your ears "Just do your best".... leadership at its very best... Yvonne T, if you happen to read this blog, I know you or at the very least your bright young things do... either hand back the keys or come down to the coal face and turn over some stones and see for yourself..
Morning fellow blogees and what a great weekend to reflect on the failures of the prison and probation 'reforms'. I am sure most of us would agree that 'reform' is just a pseudonym for enormous financial cuts in this time of austerity. There is no actual reform is there..nothing that could be described as an actual improvement to services. Here is a snapshot of 'reform' to the management of offenders in the community over the past 25 years from someone who has recently taken early retirement.
Remove our professional qualification and take social work out of probation. Let's face it the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work was more representative of our job which incorporates many aspects of social work, working with mental health, drugs and alcohol, domestic violence, child protection...bread and butter of social workers. Concentrating on only criminology or even psychology is missing the major environmental factors that are in need of change. Society v individual as the cause of crime. This government would prefer to blame the individual rather than focus on failings of society.
Creation of PSO's as opposed to fully qualified PO only. Ok I know this is contentious. I actually think there IS a role for PSO's and have worked with many in my time but it is a bit like teaching assistants in schools. Until they are accredited fully and have years of experience behind them they need close supervision and support. They should not be employed and then immediately given large caseload of low to medium risk offenders which is what happens now. It is similar to the news recently with large numbers of classroom assistants left in charge of classes. Gradual erosion of professional standards is not good for anyone. Just because you don't need a professional qualification to be an MP it doesn't mean other professions don't or do. We want to go back to the days of asking the barber to stitch a wound or pull teeth?!
Loss of community reporting offices and day centres. Gone are the days when you knew your local area and everyone operating services there. Some staff were running services voluntarily such as football groups or groups for women on probation. It wasn't cute n cuddly social work, it was a lifeline for some people who have told me years later in the street how much it meant to them! Now service users have to travel miles to get to a central office or 'hub' which seems to be the new fangled word!
Groupwork: groupwork rose to prominence but never replaced one to one work entirely. 2 years ago there were about 8 different groups in my area but post privatisation they have shrunk to about 4 and I am told even lower now as staff running them have left and need to train people up. Doesn't sound like progress to me.
RAR days! Hmmmm..do magistrates really know what a RAR day is I wonder? Surely this is just basic one to one supervision or a group which is what we were doing anyway when we had the time. A trip to the jobcentre? Come on! People would be doing that anyway.. just a renaming if you ask me!
Management. What was wrong with having one SPO managing one office! Worked for me but now TR means running around like a headless chicken supervising staff at 2 or even 3 offices and failing miserably.
Training. If it's free book staff on, if it costs forget it! No more in house training unit. So who is doing the basics such as managing risk, working with sex offenders? Ok, CRC don't work with sex offenders! Except when it is historical! Dodgy that!
Could go on for ever here! Anyway I'm off to mow the lawn on this sunny day and ponder the meaning of life. Back to work on Monday, early retirement doesn't mean you can't get another job but you can hopefully choose to do something a whole less stressful.
******
"Supervision" rolled far more easily off the tongue in court, rather than "rehabilitation activity requirement", and far more straightforward to explain in terms of the Act and its practical application. I sometimes wonder whether these ridiculous changes are intended to fudge and confuse, all the easier to create an impression of something being done. What is a RAR day? I still don't know. How long does it last? If one is missed, does it require making up? Is there some mystical corner of ND that I've (easily) so far missed that shows how many RAR days have been completed on an ongoing order?
******
What is a RAR day? Same goes for Post Sentence Supervision. Poorly defined concepts, poorly integrated and in consequence practitioners, managers and so called businesses alike confused and uncertain. Justice Committee sensibly asks for clarity on Prison Reform lest it be the dog's breakfast that is TR.
******
RAR days = professionals running around like headless chickens ticking boxes and (forced to make some up if not enough are ticked), delivering meaningless interventions all so that the paymasters can get paid. Maybe this should be put in all PSRs when judges and magistrates ask for explanations as to what we do on RAR days.
******
Just had a bizarre dream series where CRCs had been forced to hand contracts over to Citizens Advice Bureaux, and "community rehabilitation" was being delivered in libraries & train station cafes by freelance "advisors" who were paid in cash after downloading their contact details via a laptop into a CAB mobile server mounted in the boot of a white Volvo V70.
******
The answer, is 'No.' No-one has noticed - including politicians, journos, etc - because no-one really gives a rats arse. Probation-as-was was always under the radar, low key, understated, modest to the point of clinically shy. On a number of occasions this blog has highlighted the path of probation's demise, from 1992 & the CJAct which turned probation into a political plaything, through the cessation of SW training in 1995/6, NOMS in 2003, Trusts in 2007 to the implementation of TR in 2013. NAPO lost its way from 2005 on as NOMS's stranglehold tightened & Trusts were hatched, with Ledger metaphorically & literally fumbling in the dark.
I've been out of the profession for some time now but I had chance to have conversations with some who are either still hanging on or more recently departed, and they have revealed shocking conditions in which people are working - bullying, incompetence, lying, no equipment, no management, no office, dismissals, people frog-marched out of offices... These are all things written about on this blog at various times, but which I've now had first-hand accounts of. It is monstrous how the privateers are behaving towards staff and clients.
One conversation was with an ex-colleague, now a senior manager, who thinks it's all just fine & dandy. They seemed well, positive, content and spoke enthusiastically about their achievements in the CRC......interestingly, and without fail, that same person was named by others as a "major local problem" - variously referred to as a bully, a braggart who refuses to listen, rarely in the office, blames staff for everything, a liar & a fraud.
A gaping chasm has opened up... is that where the simple truth has gone? Everywhere I look these days there are several varieties of truth. Take the US strikes on Syria. 59 tomahawk missiles were fired, but that's the only fact people can agree on. US say 58/59 landed on target. Russia say 23/59. Etc, etc...So Grayling's truth is not my truth - that much I do know!
******
It's clearly time for a blog special on the fiasco/failure/debacle/disaster that is Interserve's Cheshire and Manchester (and Merseyside, let's not pretend that's really separate) CRC - the very embodiment of cynicism with its institutional disdain for the real needs of its client group and a venomous contempt for the professional and personal integrity of what remains of its workforce.
******
Off Piste I know... but you need an update on the lunacy that is Interserve and the now fabled Interchange Model....The CEO, young Mr Edwards and his now infamous blog; his updates have somehow managed to conflate the abject failure of Interserve to manage one of their contracts in their core role as facility management and subsequent loss of revenue with the service credits accrued by MCRC and CMCRC which are currently running in excess of 100 thousand pound sterling. How he manages to compare the failure to clean a toilet to a satisfactory standard with the production of an ISP that has a Risk Management Plan and good sentence plan in the same breath is bewildering at best...
He completely ignores; or if I am being kind; he cannot compute the serious high sickness rates, coupled with PSOs/POs leaving in droves... in tandem with those clueless Directors (ACOs) Interchange Managers (SPOs) who think that by cascading an email untouched or not explained sent from on high with a single note saying "Please action". Knowing the attachment being one of those heavy duty many-paged documents they want you to pick the bones out of and somehow implement... and you know what the coal face does... F9 Delete....
If you can't be bothered to even try to explain in plain English what you want then it does not deserve my attention.... Off piste again with that rant but the latest offering from Interserve is that they want the flex teams (Pods, teams, units, in old money) to sort out amongst themselves, without any management oversight, no direction, no leadership, to reallocate case which may show as failing targets or cases that are 'drifting'. They want us to meet as flex team each week without any management involvement .. review their super duper Service Level Spreadsheets which are monitored by the poor old Case Coordinators (Case Admin, again in old money - there is a theme running here) and decide who should complete the ISP which is now too close to ignore as they are failing said target.
The reason that the target is failing my dear Christopher, is because the ridiculous central focused Professional Service Centres (PSCs) are allocating new case to case managers at the start of their leave. So when they return from leave they ae faced with immediate failures.... Now the PSCs will blame the IMs (SPOs - Do keep up!!) for not completing their staffing spreadsheets which show who is available and who is not... but when the IMs have gone off sick or are trying their collective best to learn how to be facility managers (lets be honest, that is what they have turned into) who is in charge? Are the lunatics now running the asylum?...
When I sit down and have a good old one to one with little Tommy Aikens during one of our RAR sessions (Reality = A good old supervision session in old money).. We both end up sharing the same comfort blanket to get through our day... Just another day in the life... interRUPT, interFERE, interGALACTICAL, interMITTENT but very little (inter)service..
******
Absolutely spot on - Mr E is far too removed to actually care about staff - on one of his visits to offices where he wanted to be viewed as "a listener/doer/caring" all he kept banging on about was when "everything was working effectively then it would make life easier to be a offender manager" we told him to come back when this was actually happening and that due to the failure of the Interserve model and the stresses associated with it, all staff were dropping like flies or hanging on by our finger nails - I'm sure this was resonated by staff in all offices he visited - the management of Interserve are like the 3 monkey's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" - so much for their motto "every one has a voice" - well as long as you're saying what they want to hear!!
******
I don't know how Chris can carry on being so deceitful, its like he knows the service has failed and can't offer anything to the staff but instead of admitting it he carry's on spouting nonsense. I used to think he was okay when he worked for the trust, but he has turned out to be a right pillock. Both him and his wife are doing very well thank you out of interswereve.
******
If I could afford to leave Interserve's Manchester CRC I'd be gone today. While staff are being run into the ground by unmanageable caseloads and impossible and pointless targets and deadlines the managers - sorry I mean 'executives' and 'directors' and 'Interchange managers' - are busy slapping each other on the back for the 'progress' we're making because they've rendered the already dismal working environment even more unpleasant by shutting most of the offices and making the remaining spaces look and feel like start-up call centres done on the cheap. If there are consultants who advise cut-throat companies on how to make job conditions so miserable that everyone will leave instead of having to be paid redundancy money, they're definitely working for Manchester CRC.
******
I totally agree. I too work within Manchester CRC - I would so love to be able to leave but my finances at present dictate otherwise - Chris Edwards blog this week was of no surprise telling staff that he was impressed by those using Skype in order to cut down on travel expenses (not sure who these people are skyping instead of face to face contact - offenders ?). I've also been waiting (since I read it some time ago) for the "we need to tighten our belts and not do anything to loose Interswerve any more money" - they can't even manage a waste contract adequately.
He also banged on about groups etc which we all know don't need half as many staff - I'm concerned and have been for some time (especially as Yvonne Thomas told the JSC that they didn't make as many cuts to staffing as they'd anticipated) that they will do so now they need to recoup their losses and nail them out of litigation (due to failed waste contract) - watch this space!! These really are bloody awful times and I totally agree that they want to shaft the experienced more expensive staff to be able to employ more niave inexperienced buggers on Interswerve contracts and T&C's whilst the exec, directors and the likes are of the belief that all in the garden is rosy - full of Interswerves waste Shit!
*****
I too would like to leave but can't afford to, however on some days I feel the salary does not add up to the horror and stress working for interswere. They are despicable. I knew the minute I was shafted to work for them that my career was over and that I no longer could uphold the values dignity and morals to help those that are most marginalised in society.
*****
Yes, it's like there are two Interswerve Manchester CRCs - the special magical Interswerve/Management version where just saying 'inter' five times transforms lives and everything's 'innovative' and 'exciting', and then the real one where the totally demoralised and ever-dwindling staff group are crammed into miserable call centre style offices designed to sap their will to live, while being expected to supervise sixty or seventy cases each with no resources apart from a laptop computer that only works every other day. It's Hellish, and better still it's clearly meant to be hellish so that we'll fuck off and make way for cheaper and more desperate and malleable staff.
*****
I think Interswerve are beating the battle on that front from the comments regularly made about them on this blog, it won be long before the odd few staff that are left will leave, you can only suffer for so long. They'll keep getting paid and our lives will continue to be made miserable. Maybe the only staff left will be managers and they can deliver their own worthless piece of shit that they call the interchange model.
*****
A little off topic but can I just stress again how much we loath and despise our clueless and morally bankrupt parasite paymasters Interserve, and how their bizarre notion that Probation staff would have the slightest interest in celebrating being a part of what they risibly try to term the 'Interserve family' only makes us hate them all the more... The 'Interserve family' might just be the most repugnant notion I've encountered in my working life....
*****
The chief executive of the Interserve owned Cheshire and Greater Manchester CRC today warned staff that Interserve's losses in their waste business mean that we as a CRC will now have to tighten our belts! Better still, in spelling it out he detailed how we are now expected to respond to Interserve's incompetence by...being of sick less!!
*****
And as for their 'Interchange model' - A list of words chosen purely because they start with the same five letters as 'interserve' is not a 'model', even if you have paid off a bunch of mercenary university hacks to pretend it is.
*****
Again back to one of my previous posts, the people that are banging the Interswerve drum are Probation staff (Snr Probation officers etc ) - Chris Edwards and his cronies who are narcissists with fragile egos that believe all their own hype and who's bank balances are so much more important than the people that they trained and used to work closely with! - Interswerve have obviously seen their greed and naivety as I'm sure when the going gets tougher Interswerve will (here's hoping) will kick them to the kerb like they've done with everything and everyone else they've touched.
*****
I too work for interswerve CGM - I agree in the fact that "most" but not all IM's are approachable, however quite a few now have no case manager experience (?) as they've been shafted into the role from being programme managers.
We received an email today highlighting the fact that NPS will no longer be loosening the shackles" and will be rejecting breaches for whatever reason, probably only known to them - numerous colleagues of mine have already experienced breach rejections/failures due to no fault of their own but reasons that the gatekeeping NPS team decided without liaising with said case manager.
The PSC's regularly get so many things wrong making life very difficult - the majority of staff I speak with feel that their job now entails more administrative duties due to the new model. Case loads are far to high (people have 60 - 100 cases) resulting in most staff being unable to prioritise as everything's a priority - it's a horrible feeling juggling plates like this knowing at some point you're going to drop a few (which could result in an SFO). Staff I know (I've been around quite a long time) experienced ones at that, have dropped like flies due to stress levels of holding so many cases (hearing a name and thinking 'who the hells that?', please tell me they're not on my case load).
*****
Just the word 'Interserve' makes my flesh crawl. 'Purple Futures' was bad enough, but Interserve have now abandoned even any pretence of leading a 'partnership'. They plainly don't give a fuck about Shelter still taking our money and yet barely even bothering even to pretend to provide a meaningful 'Through the Gate' service. No one knows who 3SC are or what the fuck they even claim to do. P3 operate a criteria whereby they only provide support to clients who can demonstrate that they don't need it and otherwise it's just Interserve Interserve Interserve all the way. Better still, despite their transparent efforts to deprofessionalise our service, they seem to have some bizarre notion that we might somehow respect their filthy money-grubbing organisation and in some way be pleased or even proud to be a part of their 'Interserve family'. Their efforts to try and make us believe that they are our 'friend' or that they could give a damn about the people we work with truly make me want to vomit. Do they really not understand that as a workforce we have nothing but contempt for them and for everything they stand for? Fuck Interserve.
*****
Seeing Interswerves "Ingenuity at work" signs on everything makes me feel incensed!! Through the gate staff don't even have access to NDelius so have no bloody idea who they need to contact, hence "we" are told that we have to make contact with TTG staff in whatever prison with ALL our custody cases, which yet again is a massive task, also part of Interswerves Appraisal objectives!!
As part of Interswerves model we're supposed to have a "directory of local) services" run by 3SC which is not fit for purpose but supposedly we use them for RAR days as they are "supposed" to be services that are locally commissioned by PS3 to provide CRC's services (really?) - one service on there is "phone FRANK" again REALLY! I'm sure courts would love to hear that we completed RAR days by phoning FRANK! - I totally agree with you it make me ill, however what makes me feel worse are the management that were previously Probation Officers that have sold their soul's to Interswerve and now appear to have no sign of professional nor personal integrity.
*****
Well said. Interswerve are a deplorable company but always try to hide behind a made up image that they actually care. Do they seriously think that we are unable to see through their greedy bullshit. I wish they would F off and take their daft interchange model with them, they could try using it on their cleaning contracts.
*****
Here's the thing with PF/Interserve. MCRC now has such a terrible reputation with Crown Court judges, District Judges and lay Magistrates. It really is bubbling under the surface. Directors, or ACOs in old money, have been called to account by the Recorder and District Judges for such poor quality of cases not being managed. They are rapidly loosing confidence.. So the bemused directors cobble together a very telling email to staff outlining the 'reputational damage' this is causing and people need to sort this out as a matter of absolute importance. Essentially waving a big stick.
They, bless their poor corporate souls, fail miserably in recognising that the IT is so poor, the new PSOs are not trained, those poor sods have re located from admin, accommodation and HQ posts that were got rid of during the great run down of Trusts are now holding 70-80 cases with the most half-arsed on the job training, no idea about OASys sentence plans, RMPs, breach reports, evidence to support breaches, when to breach, HDC, ROTL etc etc etc.... Then, surprise surprise, these people leave in droves, and the cases left behind are by any standard in an absolute mess.
The good old boys and gels who now hold nice fancy titles like Interchange Director are literally clueless..... completely out of their collective depths. The so called DOS (Directory of Services) to support RAR activity..... well it is merely just a poor quality spreadsheet that is at best described as embarrassing and at worst... well its just criminal. So what do you do when you are handed another dozen or so re-allocated cases that on inspection really does turn your blood cold? You draw a line under the past management and move forward. Sod reputational damage if it is in a unrecoverable mess, then send it back from whence it came saying not in my name... or return it to court in your name but having to expose the mess..
This is left at PSO/PO level to sort with that great management default phase ringing in your ears "Just do your best".... leadership at its very best... Yvonne T, if you happen to read this blog, I know you or at the very least your bright young things do... either hand back the keys or come down to the coal face and turn over some stones and see for yourself..
Thursday, 13 April 2017
Latest From Napo 146
Here we have edited highlights from the latest blog post by the Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence:-
WORKING LINKS FOUND WANTING ON INSURANCE COVER FOR UPW FLEET
News reaches me that a number of Working Links employees were not covered by valid CP vehicle insurance in the Devon area from the period of 27th March up to last weekend. The ensuing chaos in the delivery of Community Payback was compounded by a previous delay with the delivery of fuel cards. I am told that this resulted in some of the van fleet being grounded miles away from their scheduled use last weekend with desperate staff using their own vehicles to transport offenders back from community service assignments.
It seems that someone at least had the nous to order a lock down on the use of all fleet vehicles within the operational areas while steps were taken to rectify the situation. A number of supervisory staff, understandably concerned about their legal position, used their own vehicles to tell clients at CP sites to stand down.
It is not clear at this stage whether this resulted in unsupervised clients having to make their own way home, but a number of issues have been raised with me by members regarding the loss of community service provision, estimated at the equivalent hours for 70 clients, and the impact on those organisations who expected unpaid work to be carried out on their behalf. There are also doubts being expressed about other vehicles owned by Working Links that are thought not to have valid MOT certificates.
No; before you say it I will. You could not make it up.
Workloads campaign is for everybody!
We sent out another reminder to members this week about the plans for Napo members everywhere: NPS/CRC/PBNI/CAFCASS to take part in the lunchtime demos on Workers Memorial Day on 28th April. This is a timely opportunity to get out in the sunshine or rain (whatever) and highlight the impact of workloads on you and your colleagues. It’s also another opportunity to open up a discussion with colleagues who are not in a trade union about why we are organising activities such as this.
An unpaid bill?
News reaching me from the NPS North West where members have told me that it has not been possible to make telephone calls this week from a number of locations and Approved Premises around Lancashire, as it is thought that bills have not been paid on time.
Fortunately incoming calls were possible and hopefully someone down at HMPPS in London will have taken advantage of this and enquired as to what has gone on exactly.
It’s a strange eco-unfriendly world in some CRC’s
Speaking of bills, CRC staff tell Napo that SEETEC are unwilling to pay for the cost of the tea towel cleaning contract (reported to be £8 per week) and have instructed staff to buy new ones and throw them away. Mixed views about this latest cost cutting exercise, with some well-founded speculation that the ‘buy and throw’ policy is likely to be more expensive and not too good for our environment.
Maybe we ought not to be too surprised, following the ‘buy and throw’ approach to staffing that some CRC owners adopted soon after winning the contracts.
Attendance Management and the need for consistency
The way in which the deeply unpopular HMPPS Attendance Management Policy was written and its chaotic application across the NPS, is a constant source of dissatisfaction among members.
We are doing all that we can, amongst the many other priorities, to challenge situations where we can and to offer advice to hard pressed Branch Reps. We are also in discussion with the POA about their current engagement with HMPPS on the policy.
For example, National Official Sarah Friday met with HR specialists from HMPPS this week. They confirmed that there should not be a cap on the number of days for invoking trigger points when allowing for reasonable adjustment, as each case will differ and should be judged on its merits. So if there is evidence that a cap is operating please let your Link Officer know.
I was able to alert the HMPPS Well-Being team to some worrying information that had reached me this week from our reps in an NPS Division and I have been assured that they will be looking into how they can address the problems there as part of their support and sustain programme.
Branch Napo leads for the Attendance Management policy should also keep an eye out for an awareness workshop that HMPPS have agreed to run for managers and union reps. It is hoped that this will allow for full and open dialogue about what has and is going on, as well as what ought to be happening.
More news to follow as soon as possible.
Happy Holiday
Here’s hoping you make the best of the long weekend and that we have some decent weather to go with it.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
Latest From Napo 145
Thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following circulated to all London Branch Napo members:-
MATERNITY LEAVE VICTORY IN THE NPS - MEMBERS HARMONISATION CONSULTATION – reply by 19th April
All NPS members should shortly be receiving an e-consultation on proposals to harmonise several MoJ/NOMS policies, including maternity leave and annual leave for new starters. The proposals are a vast improvement on initial offers and reflect prolonged and difficult negotiations at national level. Napo are recommending the package as a whole. Members are asked to indicate their view by no later than 19th April.
Napo is the only party who have consistently pressed for urgent harmonisation of maternity leave since at split but at various stages this has been prevented. In recent months the hold-up involved the NPS insisting that any improvement in maternity leave should be linked to a cut in annual leave. Napo very forcefully opposed a move we considered to be discriminatory. Our campaign on International Women’s Day highlighted members’ frustration with the NPS, with hundreds posting pictures online saying #maternitymatters. This helped persuade the NPS to drop the link to leave, although the proposals do harmonise leave for new starters.
NPS still had great concerns about their capacity to actually pay staff on maternity leave without several months lead in. This reflects the chaos and fundamental failings in the SSCL arrangements (see more below). Napo however proposed a compromise which was accepted. This means the package takes effect from 3rdSeptember, except for maternity leave which will apply for members with an EWC of 30th April, albeit with NPS stating that they may have difficulty paying people impacted properly. This is an honest, albeit shocking admission fro a major government department but Napo’s view was, unless there are major changes to the SSCL contract, we couldn’t be confident they’d be any better placed to pay people accurately in September. An earlier or backdated application of maternity pay however would have been too chaotic.
Members not receiving an e-consultation should contact Napo directly. New members in the NPS joining between now and 19th April can also join in the consultation.
PAY CLAIM COMING TO NPS, CRC and RISE
Hot on the back of the consultation about the NPS harmonisation package, Napo are also submitting their National Probation Pay Claim in the next few days. All members will be sent a copy of the claim so look out for it in your inbox over the coming week.
The claim is the same for all Employers, recognising the same challenges having transferred with a broken pay and grading model. The claim highlights how uncompetitive probation pay has become as a result of both the government’s prolonged pay freeze and the negative impact on pay progression this has disproportionately had in probation. Napo’s view is that these problems must be urgently addressed if probation employers are to have any chance of competing for staff or avoiding huge recruitment and retention challenges.
The recognised unions have been involved in pay reform negotiations with the NPS for some months are Napo remain hopeful that reform supporting the aims of the claim will be possible. The creation of HMPPS (HM Prison and Probation Service), adds further pressure on the NPS, as staff being expected to move into a custodial setting, could be asked to mentor and supervise prison staff in a lower equivalent grade, but who currently earn more than PO’s. We are also conscious however of the huge risk to MTCnovo’s capacity to compete for staff if NPS unilaterally introduces a significant pay gap. The same principle applies regarding softer terms such as maternity leave. For this reason Napo are lobbying government to make sure that the Probation Services Review (which is reviewing CRC contracts) recognises this risk and allows for a price adjustment so that CRCs can compete and members working in CRCs are protected.
To support the claim and the campaign, we will be holding a series of meetings and briefings for members.
NEW PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT READY TO BE SIGNED WITH MTCnovo
Following negotiations involving Representatives from London and Thames Valley Branches and Napo Deputy General Secretary, Dean Rogers, principled agreement has been reached with MTCnovo regarding a new local negotiation and consultation framework.
The model replicates the existing local Joint Consultative Committees for matters subject to local consultation - such as re-organisations, local office matters, etc. Contractual issues, such as pay and leave, will be negotiated across both MTCnovo Contracts via a pan-CRC committee with representatives from both London and MTCnovo unions. Representatives will have support from Napo HQ – in MTCnovo this will be Deputy General Secretary, Dean Rogers (who also directly supports members in RISE).
All of the key concerns about a joint agreement have been covered in the draft and the branch has now been informed that the agreement has been approved by Napo’s Officers and Officials Group – including agreement around legacy contract terms and a dispute mechanism that demonstrates a commitment to resolving disputes before any contractual changes are imposed. Confirmation that the agreement has been approved by Napo’s Officers and Officials Group was sought by local Chairs prior to agreeing to sign. Having now had formal notification that the agreement has been approved we are now ready to go ahead and sign the partnership agreement.
ON THE SUBJECT OF PAY…
Members in the CRC will be conscious that a payroll error meant that their March pay was delayed. This caused obvious distress and worry to members. Napo were able to make early contact with MTC Novo and we remained in regular contact throughout Friday. MTC Novo who were quick to both recognise the error and start to try and correct it. They also quickly agreed to meet any financial losses (e.g. bank charges, etc) and we will be talking to them further this week to clarify that all payments have been made and to see how any losses can easily and quickly be recovered for members.
MEANWHILE THE SSCL JUST CAN’T SHARE NICELY…
Napo has had less success trying to resolve the many different processing failures in NPS HR. These currently include new starters not being paid at all; continuing problems with staff not having the correct PAYE amounts deducted leading to tax issues; staff changing their working pattern (e.g. maternity leave; going part time; increasing their hours) not being paid or taxed correctly; pensions contributions not being correctly collected; staff moving roles being issued with the wrong contracts; etc. We are extremely conscious of the increased risks arising from more staff being moved towards working in HMPPS.
The SSCL contract is clearly another example of the failed, rushed TR sell off. Put bluntly, any shared-service model can only work if all those covered are on shared terms and conditions. The insistence from HM Treasury that the split was dependent upon probation staff remaining in the local government pension scheme alone means this isn’t possible. Failures to address pay issues just exaggerate the differences whilst differences in maternity and leave have further highlighted the problem. Napo has been willing to address harmonisation to try and solve member’s problems but as we close the gaps the scale of the problem becomes ever clearer.
Napo is now of the view that this cannot be fixed without starting over. We are now lobbying Ministers and the Justice Select Committee to call for an enquiry into TR and asking them to call in the SSCL contract.
NAPO HOSTING PROBATION MEETS
National Napo suggests……….
‘With so much going on and so much negativity around probation, prisons and the Justice Sector, it is important that we remember why we do what we do, and find new ways of getting together to talk about what our work should be about. Staying positive about probation has never been more important.
With people working so hard finding time to get together isn’t easy and attending old style union meetings can be difficult. Napo recognise this, which is why we are launching a series of informal, social get together after work where people can come with the specific task of saying why they still love probation, share successes and talk about what and how they want to see probation work in the future.’
National Napo wants to pilot these get together type meetings in London and Thames Valley.
We think National Napo’s aspiration is admirable, however, times are tough and the branch execs view at this time is that………
We recognise that London Branch has a diverse membership and many of our members have child care and other spare time commitments (not least recovering from work pressures) that make meeting after work etc difficult. What we suggest, as a first step, is that members start small by getting together with Napo colleagues for lunch (instead of eating at your desks) in order to talk about the issues that most concern you over a cup of tea/coffee and a sandwich etc. As a suggestion you could make this the last Friday of the month and advertise it to colleagues. Recent events have been experienced as disruptive and impacted on staff in many different ways not least with regard to the availability of local office union reps and access to experienced union members who have either moved elsewhere or left probation altogether.
In many work places we now need to rebuild the union networks from the bottom up and we need your help to do so. Getting together in small groups with other Napo members is the start of union activity at a grass roots level (it’s how unions started) and from your activity we hope to build a stronger union. You might, for example, decide to take small but significant decisions to kick-start things in your office such as agreeing re-establish a union notice board to provide a visible union presence or decide to participate in a Napo campaign or discuss professional issues such as training or the IT system. We know that once you get started then there will be no stopping you as there is a lot of energy and ideas out there and by meeting regularly you will gain invaluable support from your union colleagues and know you are doing something constructive.
If you need any advice and support regarding this, please get in touch. The idea is to get together, to get something started, please contact Mail London NAPO, or. nps.LondonNAPO
DEAN ROGERS (Assistant General Secretary)
PATRICIA JOHNSON (NPS Co Chair) David A Raho (CRC Co Chair)
MATERNITY LEAVE VICTORY IN THE NPS - MEMBERS HARMONISATION CONSULTATION – reply by 19th April
All NPS members should shortly be receiving an e-consultation on proposals to harmonise several MoJ/NOMS policies, including maternity leave and annual leave for new starters. The proposals are a vast improvement on initial offers and reflect prolonged and difficult negotiations at national level. Napo are recommending the package as a whole. Members are asked to indicate their view by no later than 19th April.
Napo is the only party who have consistently pressed for urgent harmonisation of maternity leave since at split but at various stages this has been prevented. In recent months the hold-up involved the NPS insisting that any improvement in maternity leave should be linked to a cut in annual leave. Napo very forcefully opposed a move we considered to be discriminatory. Our campaign on International Women’s Day highlighted members’ frustration with the NPS, with hundreds posting pictures online saying #maternitymatters. This helped persuade the NPS to drop the link to leave, although the proposals do harmonise leave for new starters.
NPS still had great concerns about their capacity to actually pay staff on maternity leave without several months lead in. This reflects the chaos and fundamental failings in the SSCL arrangements (see more below). Napo however proposed a compromise which was accepted. This means the package takes effect from 3rdSeptember, except for maternity leave which will apply for members with an EWC of 30th April, albeit with NPS stating that they may have difficulty paying people impacted properly. This is an honest, albeit shocking admission fro a major government department but Napo’s view was, unless there are major changes to the SSCL contract, we couldn’t be confident they’d be any better placed to pay people accurately in September. An earlier or backdated application of maternity pay however would have been too chaotic.
Members not receiving an e-consultation should contact Napo directly. New members in the NPS joining between now and 19th April can also join in the consultation.
PAY CLAIM COMING TO NPS, CRC and RISE
Hot on the back of the consultation about the NPS harmonisation package, Napo are also submitting their National Probation Pay Claim in the next few days. All members will be sent a copy of the claim so look out for it in your inbox over the coming week.
The claim is the same for all Employers, recognising the same challenges having transferred with a broken pay and grading model. The claim highlights how uncompetitive probation pay has become as a result of both the government’s prolonged pay freeze and the negative impact on pay progression this has disproportionately had in probation. Napo’s view is that these problems must be urgently addressed if probation employers are to have any chance of competing for staff or avoiding huge recruitment and retention challenges.
The recognised unions have been involved in pay reform negotiations with the NPS for some months are Napo remain hopeful that reform supporting the aims of the claim will be possible. The creation of HMPPS (HM Prison and Probation Service), adds further pressure on the NPS, as staff being expected to move into a custodial setting, could be asked to mentor and supervise prison staff in a lower equivalent grade, but who currently earn more than PO’s. We are also conscious however of the huge risk to MTCnovo’s capacity to compete for staff if NPS unilaterally introduces a significant pay gap. The same principle applies regarding softer terms such as maternity leave. For this reason Napo are lobbying government to make sure that the Probation Services Review (which is reviewing CRC contracts) recognises this risk and allows for a price adjustment so that CRCs can compete and members working in CRCs are protected.
To support the claim and the campaign, we will be holding a series of meetings and briefings for members.
NEW PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT READY TO BE SIGNED WITH MTCnovo
Following negotiations involving Representatives from London and Thames Valley Branches and Napo Deputy General Secretary, Dean Rogers, principled agreement has been reached with MTCnovo regarding a new local negotiation and consultation framework.
The model replicates the existing local Joint Consultative Committees for matters subject to local consultation - such as re-organisations, local office matters, etc. Contractual issues, such as pay and leave, will be negotiated across both MTCnovo Contracts via a pan-CRC committee with representatives from both London and MTCnovo unions. Representatives will have support from Napo HQ – in MTCnovo this will be Deputy General Secretary, Dean Rogers (who also directly supports members in RISE).
All of the key concerns about a joint agreement have been covered in the draft and the branch has now been informed that the agreement has been approved by Napo’s Officers and Officials Group – including agreement around legacy contract terms and a dispute mechanism that demonstrates a commitment to resolving disputes before any contractual changes are imposed. Confirmation that the agreement has been approved by Napo’s Officers and Officials Group was sought by local Chairs prior to agreeing to sign. Having now had formal notification that the agreement has been approved we are now ready to go ahead and sign the partnership agreement.
ON THE SUBJECT OF PAY…
Members in the CRC will be conscious that a payroll error meant that their March pay was delayed. This caused obvious distress and worry to members. Napo were able to make early contact with MTC Novo and we remained in regular contact throughout Friday. MTC Novo who were quick to both recognise the error and start to try and correct it. They also quickly agreed to meet any financial losses (e.g. bank charges, etc) and we will be talking to them further this week to clarify that all payments have been made and to see how any losses can easily and quickly be recovered for members.
MEANWHILE THE SSCL JUST CAN’T SHARE NICELY…
Napo has had less success trying to resolve the many different processing failures in NPS HR. These currently include new starters not being paid at all; continuing problems with staff not having the correct PAYE amounts deducted leading to tax issues; staff changing their working pattern (e.g. maternity leave; going part time; increasing their hours) not being paid or taxed correctly; pensions contributions not being correctly collected; staff moving roles being issued with the wrong contracts; etc. We are extremely conscious of the increased risks arising from more staff being moved towards working in HMPPS.
The SSCL contract is clearly another example of the failed, rushed TR sell off. Put bluntly, any shared-service model can only work if all those covered are on shared terms and conditions. The insistence from HM Treasury that the split was dependent upon probation staff remaining in the local government pension scheme alone means this isn’t possible. Failures to address pay issues just exaggerate the differences whilst differences in maternity and leave have further highlighted the problem. Napo has been willing to address harmonisation to try and solve member’s problems but as we close the gaps the scale of the problem becomes ever clearer.
Napo is now of the view that this cannot be fixed without starting over. We are now lobbying Ministers and the Justice Select Committee to call for an enquiry into TR and asking them to call in the SSCL contract.
NAPO HOSTING PROBATION MEETS
National Napo suggests……….
‘With so much going on and so much negativity around probation, prisons and the Justice Sector, it is important that we remember why we do what we do, and find new ways of getting together to talk about what our work should be about. Staying positive about probation has never been more important.
With people working so hard finding time to get together isn’t easy and attending old style union meetings can be difficult. Napo recognise this, which is why we are launching a series of informal, social get together after work where people can come with the specific task of saying why they still love probation, share successes and talk about what and how they want to see probation work in the future.’
National Napo wants to pilot these get together type meetings in London and Thames Valley.
We think National Napo’s aspiration is admirable, however, times are tough and the branch execs view at this time is that………
We recognise that London Branch has a diverse membership and many of our members have child care and other spare time commitments (not least recovering from work pressures) that make meeting after work etc difficult. What we suggest, as a first step, is that members start small by getting together with Napo colleagues for lunch (instead of eating at your desks) in order to talk about the issues that most concern you over a cup of tea/coffee and a sandwich etc. As a suggestion you could make this the last Friday of the month and advertise it to colleagues. Recent events have been experienced as disruptive and impacted on staff in many different ways not least with regard to the availability of local office union reps and access to experienced union members who have either moved elsewhere or left probation altogether.
In many work places we now need to rebuild the union networks from the bottom up and we need your help to do so. Getting together in small groups with other Napo members is the start of union activity at a grass roots level (it’s how unions started) and from your activity we hope to build a stronger union. You might, for example, decide to take small but significant decisions to kick-start things in your office such as agreeing re-establish a union notice board to provide a visible union presence or decide to participate in a Napo campaign or discuss professional issues such as training or the IT system. We know that once you get started then there will be no stopping you as there is a lot of energy and ideas out there and by meeting regularly you will gain invaluable support from your union colleagues and know you are doing something constructive.
If you need any advice and support regarding this, please get in touch. The idea is to get together, to get something started, please contact Mail London NAPO, or. nps.LondonNAPO
DEAN ROGERS (Assistant General Secretary)
PATRICIA JOHNSON (NPS Co Chair) David A Raho (CRC Co Chair)
Monday, 10 April 2017
Another Grayling Defeat!
Yet again the Howard League under Frances Crook has achieved a reversal of a Chris Grayling policy, leaving only the probation TR omnishambles to sort out. This from the Guardian:-
Cuts to legal aid for prisoners ruled unlawful
The government has lost a key court of appeal battle over access to legal aid for prisoners in a ruling that campaigners have called a groundbreaking victory. Campaigners said the ruling vindicated their concerns that the system had become “inherently unfair” after the government stopped certain categories of prisoners from receiving criminal legal aid in 2013.
The Ministry of Justice’s refusal to provide funding has been overturned in three out of five categories, reversing cuts originally introduced by the former justice secretary, Chris Grayling, four years ago. The judicial review claim was brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service. The Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened to support their application.
Three judges – Lady Justice Gloster, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Beatson – found that the way legal aid restrictions had been operating was unlawful in three separate areas of internal prison hearings: pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, category-A reviews, and decisions on placing inmates in close supervision centres.
Their unanimous judgment said: “The government’s decision to remove legal aid from the five categories of decision-making that are the subject of these proceedings by the 2013 [cuts] was made because it considers that there were adequate alternative means in place to ensure prisoners can participate effectively in areas in which support has hitherto been provided by legal advice and legal representation.
“The consequence is that almost no changes have been introduced to replace the gap left by the removal of legal aid. We have concluded that, at a time when ... the evidence about prison staffing levels, the current state of prisons, and the workload of the Parole Board suggests that the system is under considerable pressure, the system has at present not got the capacity sufficiently to fill the gap in the run of cases in those three areas.”
Welcoming the decision, Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the decision would make the public safer: “It vindicates our concerns that cuts imposed by the former lord chancellor, Chris Grayling, in 2013 presented a grave risk that prisoners would become stuck in a broken system.
“This sends a clear message that important decisions about prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairly in the face of these cuts. We look forward to hearing from the lord chancellor with her plans to give effect to the judgment,” she said.
Deborah Russo, joint managing solicitor of the Prisoners’ Advice Service, said: “This is an unprecedented and groundbreaking legal victory in which the vulnerability of the prison population is fully recognised as a key factor in its limited ability to access justice. Common law came to the rescue of a marginalised and often forgotten sector of our society.”
The legal challenge produced major concessions from the Ministry of Justice before the case came to court in January this year. They agreed that legal aid should be available in cases involving mother-and-baby units, resettlement issues, licence conditions and segregation through an exceptional funding scheme.
But this left five areas where the withdrawal of legal aid was causing problems: pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board on whether the prisoner is suitable for a move to open conditions; categorisation reviews of category-A high-security prisoners; access to offending behaviour programmes and courses; disciplinary proceedings where no additional days of imprisonment or detention can be awarded; and placement in close supervision centres.
The 86-page ruling found that the withdrawal of legal aid was causing inherent or systemic unfairness in three of the these five areas, and that prisoners should have access to legal aid to pay for legal representation during pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, reviews of category-A high-security status, and decisions on placements within close supervision centres, which deal with the most disruptive and or dangerous prisoners.
Following the verdict, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, said: “A hallmark of a democratic legal system is that it is fair and robust for all users. Without access to legal aid, prisoners with learning difficulties and mental illness would not be able to participate effectively in important decisions about their future, placing them at a significant disadvantage. We welcome today’s judgment that will ensure our legal system continues to provide legal help during these hearings.”
An MoJ spokesperson said: “We note the court of appeal’s judgment on changes made to legal aid regulations – introduced in 2013 – and will consider whether to appeal.”
The department is looking at alternative ways of ensuring that the system is not unfair. Such changes may involve means other than restoring legal aid.
Latest From Napo 144
Edited highlights from the Napo General Secretary's Friday blog post:-
Maternity & Family Leave - a huge breakthrough at last
I was not exaggerating in my last Blog post when I said that this week was going to be full of news and so it proved. NPS members have now been sent a consultative ballot in respect of the outcome of negotiations which have taken an age to reach fruition. The covering material explains the reasons why and no doubt you will draw your own conclusions, but following the recommendation by Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee, members are being asked to accept the package and get your responses in to us by mid-day on 17th April please.
There is one caveat to the proposal in that it is unlikely that the beneficiaries of the new maternity leave arrangements will receive all of their pay entitlements on time but see the section below on the loss of confidence with SSSCL below to get a better appreciation of the problem.
Meeting with members NW Approved Premises
To say we have a few issues around staffing, terms and conditions and the crass decision by NPS to invite tenders for waking night cover in AP’s is something of an understatement.
Following a meeting of members in the North West we had reason to write to NOMS senior management in the following terms.
‘We have now had some feedback from the meeting with Napo members in the North West AP’s yesterday. As you know from our previous conversations our key priority has been to work constructively with you to make sure that agreed national processes are being fairly and consistently applied and to try not to inflame tensions that have arisen over the heavy handed application of the medication policy.
To this end we think that the meeting will have been useful to help our members understand what is fair and reasonable and has hopefully calmed things.
However, two significant major issues continue for us. Firstly, trust is and has been undermined by the information that you have been given that there have as yet not been any external advertising of AP night worker roles. We can now confidently assert that this is not the case. External adverts were placed in January for 40 jobs as AP Night workers across the region, around half in Merseyside. Interviews have been held (with Napo members confirming this as they were on the panel) and 2 people have been appointed (both currently relief workers). Napo will need to reserve our position until we know if any existing workers have been deemed unsuitable but we must record our huge disappointment at this development.
Secondly, we raised with you concerns about jobs being advertised in AP’s for posts that would evidently be in scope for TUPE at the lower Band 1. Napo would be very anxious if this was the case as it would make reassuring members in Band 2 roles who remain in scope, that their terms would or could be sustainable post transfer very difficult – especially if the re-banding had been done out with E3 and in secret.
Indeed, we would be obliged to explore the legality of such an action during a negotiation. Even if it were legal, given the MoJ’s track record of mis-selling contracts, such an action would be of extreme concern. Napo were assured that this wasn’t the case and that there had been no re-banding exercise undertaken or efforts to downgrade the roles to fetter a sale – on the basis that we were advised that these roles would be likely to have been in voluntary sector APs.
We await an explanation about what has gone on as I am sure you do too.
Probation System Review
It’s close to the time when the outcome of this especially important review will be put before Ministers and, as previously reported, the Justice Select Committee will have a particular interest.
It’s clear from my contact this week with a few people in the CRC sector that critical negotiations over funding are still ongoing and will hopefully be concluded by or around Easter and depending on who one speaks to some pretty mixed messages about how well they are going.
I will keep you posted as to what we know about the publication date, but as far as those people who know about such things are concerned, things are pretty much on schedule.
Workloads Campaign - Huge Response from members to Napo survey on workload impact
As you know by now, part of our 3Cs Workloads Campaign is our request to all members for information about how workload pressures affect you, your colleagues and service users.
We will use this information as part of our briefing for the press and MPs to put pressure on employers, so we do need this back by 14 April 2017.
Please let us have this information anonymously using this link https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/Workloadsimpact
(If you have difficulties completing this at work, please forward to your personal email address).
You will shortly receive more information and guidance on the next action in the campaign which will be lunchtime protests on Workers Memorial Day, Friday 28th April, to highlight the risk and safety concerns about high workloads.
Attendance Management
Hopefully NPS members will have by now had an opportunity to read the comprehensive guidance for members and managers that we issued last week but I am happy to put the link here again given the concern that this most dreadful policy is having on our members who are suffering from ill health. If you have any queries regarding these documents please refer them through your branch or your branch link National Officer.
BR19-2017 Cover letter for guidance on attendance management policy
BR20-2017 Napo guidance on Attendance Management Policy
Pay Claim submitted to all employers
If you have read the previous material that we have put out to members you will be aware that Napo believes the current probation pay system to no longer be working or fit for purpose. The many problems have been recognised by NPS negotiators in the ongoing Probation Pay Review talks. We have now written to the Prisons and Probation Minister Sam Gyimah to express the need to show urgency in addressing these failings.
The wider changes taking place across probation – namely the creation of HMPPS on the one hand; and the demise of the NNC on the other, means that we will soon be entering individual negotiations with CRCs at a point when their capacity to manage contractual commitments is already stretched and uncertain until the outcome of the Probation Services Review is known.
The claim comprehensively covers the urgent need to increase probation pay, and also highlights the need for pay reform to align with wider changes to professionalising probation and making the service more robust in the new operating context. The claim is consistent with the ideas emerging from the NPS Pay Reform talks and at this stage we remain positive and hopeful that these will make significant steps towards addressing the structural weaknesses as set out in the document.
More news to follow as soon as we have some.
Here is the pay claim in full Cover Letter Pay Claim
Loss of confidence in shared services and NPS HR functions
Another letter to the Minister has been signed off, this time on the disgraceful and shambolic service provision by SSCL and a host of unresolved problems we have laid on NOMS (as was) doors for ages in some cases. Here’s just one reason why, but see the list of shame below to see just what we have been up against.
‘I have a new member just joined as PSO in her first week. She has no contract, no staff number and NPS haven't even taken her bank details for her wages. She couldn't tell me what her pay is.’
The attachment to the letter to the Minister shows the following problems faced by our members mainly in the NPS, but some of those who are now situated in CRCs.
New Starters not being issued contracts and paid at all (NPS)
Non-payment of pro-rata pay awards to staff who left during the year from 2014-15; 2015-16; and potentially 2016-17 (CRC & NPS)
Failure to include holiday pay in wage and pension calculations for Sessional Staffs since 2014. (NPS & CRC)
Non-payment or incorrect payment of wages, including:
Tax and NI wrong upon appointment
Tax and NI wrong upon change of hours
Basic pay wrong when starting maternity
(Legacy for CRCs accepted – NPS & CRCs)
Failure to calculate compensation correctly when dismissing staff on ‘capability’ grounds, including misapplying CS rules on Pay in Lieu of Notice. These drag on for months as no-one takes responsibility. (NPS)
Taking months to resolve pay errors due to automatic emergency payments, tax and NI adjustments and automatic recoveries complicating things and cutting across human actions. (NPS)
‘Red site’ pay policy not being applied for existing staff so leapfrogging occurs, undermining efforts to address recruitment and retention. (NPS)
Possible non-progression issues as the pay data shared with union’s shows too many staff at or near pay minima. (NPS)
PENSIONS
Non-payment of contributions relating to non-payment of previous pay awards to mid-year leavers (see above) (CRC & NPS)
Miscalculation of payments and non-payment of contributions for additional work since 2014 - especially regarding Sessional staff. (CRC & NPS)
Fettering of discretion in relation to application of the 85 year-rule. (NPS)
Failure to support and process ill-health retirement applications in legacy cases for CRCs dating between 1st April 2014 and 1st February 2015 (NPS and CRC)
CONTRACTS
Staff in NPS roles working alongside NOMS employees or in prison settings being offered NOMS contracts containing the wrong terms and conditions -e.g. LGPS but NOMS leave; wrong pay band; etc. (NPS)
Jobs earmarked for TUPE transfer in Approved Premises being advertised on MoJ sites at the wrong pay band, and below the National Minimum Wage prompting suspicion of fettering the waking night cover contract negotiation process and undermining TUPE. (NPS)
SSCL advising Line Managers that NPS staff have 13 weeks’ notice instead of 12, with implications for notice pay in long term sick and capability cases. (This is an ongoing issue) (NPS)
Miscalculation of length of service for individuals (NPS)
Staff re-entering probation after a break in service being told “they don’t exist” and not offered contracts due to a loss of HR records. (NPS)
Incorrect calculation and payment of maternity leave for NPS staff working in NOMS and/or prisons (NPS)
SICK PAY
Staff being consistently told that sick pay and trigger points will be calculated over a 4 year rolling period and not any 12 consecutive months (NPS)
RECRUITMENT
Staff told to turn up at sites to start work without staff at that site knowing when to expect them via the National Recruitment Centre (NPS)
Staff notified of start date before vetting is cleared and then being put on notice when clearance not forthcoming . (NPS)
DISABILITY & AT USERS
Routine failures to implement OH report recommendations (NPS)
ICT MELTDOWN & WORKLOAD PRESSURES INCREASED
Includes offices suddenly losing all telephones and ICT
Whether all this is the fault of SSCL (and let’s not forget there are many staff who are doing their best in chaotic circumstances not of their making) or whether it’s down to HR or a combination thereof, I have told the Minister that it does not exactly inspire confidence.
E3 phase 2 Napo feedback
Against all this it’s a wonder that there is any coherent work going on in the NPS as it moves to phase 2 of its Operational Masterplan otherwise known as E3. Anyway we have this week sent HMPPS management our take on the difficulties that we foresee here, and we will publish these to members shortly.
Maternity & Family Leave - a huge breakthrough at last
I was not exaggerating in my last Blog post when I said that this week was going to be full of news and so it proved. NPS members have now been sent a consultative ballot in respect of the outcome of negotiations which have taken an age to reach fruition. The covering material explains the reasons why and no doubt you will draw your own conclusions, but following the recommendation by Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee, members are being asked to accept the package and get your responses in to us by mid-day on 17th April please.
There is one caveat to the proposal in that it is unlikely that the beneficiaries of the new maternity leave arrangements will receive all of their pay entitlements on time but see the section below on the loss of confidence with SSSCL below to get a better appreciation of the problem.
Meeting with members NW Approved Premises
To say we have a few issues around staffing, terms and conditions and the crass decision by NPS to invite tenders for waking night cover in AP’s is something of an understatement.
Following a meeting of members in the North West we had reason to write to NOMS senior management in the following terms.
‘We have now had some feedback from the meeting with Napo members in the North West AP’s yesterday. As you know from our previous conversations our key priority has been to work constructively with you to make sure that agreed national processes are being fairly and consistently applied and to try not to inflame tensions that have arisen over the heavy handed application of the medication policy.
To this end we think that the meeting will have been useful to help our members understand what is fair and reasonable and has hopefully calmed things.
However, two significant major issues continue for us. Firstly, trust is and has been undermined by the information that you have been given that there have as yet not been any external advertising of AP night worker roles. We can now confidently assert that this is not the case. External adverts were placed in January for 40 jobs as AP Night workers across the region, around half in Merseyside. Interviews have been held (with Napo members confirming this as they were on the panel) and 2 people have been appointed (both currently relief workers). Napo will need to reserve our position until we know if any existing workers have been deemed unsuitable but we must record our huge disappointment at this development.
Secondly, we raised with you concerns about jobs being advertised in AP’s for posts that would evidently be in scope for TUPE at the lower Band 1. Napo would be very anxious if this was the case as it would make reassuring members in Band 2 roles who remain in scope, that their terms would or could be sustainable post transfer very difficult – especially if the re-banding had been done out with E3 and in secret.
Indeed, we would be obliged to explore the legality of such an action during a negotiation. Even if it were legal, given the MoJ’s track record of mis-selling contracts, such an action would be of extreme concern. Napo were assured that this wasn’t the case and that there had been no re-banding exercise undertaken or efforts to downgrade the roles to fetter a sale – on the basis that we were advised that these roles would be likely to have been in voluntary sector APs.
We await an explanation about what has gone on as I am sure you do too.
Probation System Review
It’s close to the time when the outcome of this especially important review will be put before Ministers and, as previously reported, the Justice Select Committee will have a particular interest.
It’s clear from my contact this week with a few people in the CRC sector that critical negotiations over funding are still ongoing and will hopefully be concluded by or around Easter and depending on who one speaks to some pretty mixed messages about how well they are going.
I will keep you posted as to what we know about the publication date, but as far as those people who know about such things are concerned, things are pretty much on schedule.
Workloads Campaign - Huge Response from members to Napo survey on workload impact
As you know by now, part of our 3Cs Workloads Campaign is our request to all members for information about how workload pressures affect you, your colleagues and service users.
We will use this information as part of our briefing for the press and MPs to put pressure on employers, so we do need this back by 14 April 2017.
Please let us have this information anonymously using this link https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/Workloadsimpact
(If you have difficulties completing this at work, please forward to your personal email address).
You will shortly receive more information and guidance on the next action in the campaign which will be lunchtime protests on Workers Memorial Day, Friday 28th April, to highlight the risk and safety concerns about high workloads.
Attendance Management
Hopefully NPS members will have by now had an opportunity to read the comprehensive guidance for members and managers that we issued last week but I am happy to put the link here again given the concern that this most dreadful policy is having on our members who are suffering from ill health. If you have any queries regarding these documents please refer them through your branch or your branch link National Officer.
BR19-2017 Cover letter for guidance on attendance management policy
BR20-2017 Napo guidance on Attendance Management Policy
Pay Claim submitted to all employers
If you have read the previous material that we have put out to members you will be aware that Napo believes the current probation pay system to no longer be working or fit for purpose. The many problems have been recognised by NPS negotiators in the ongoing Probation Pay Review talks. We have now written to the Prisons and Probation Minister Sam Gyimah to express the need to show urgency in addressing these failings.
The wider changes taking place across probation – namely the creation of HMPPS on the one hand; and the demise of the NNC on the other, means that we will soon be entering individual negotiations with CRCs at a point when their capacity to manage contractual commitments is already stretched and uncertain until the outcome of the Probation Services Review is known.
The claim comprehensively covers the urgent need to increase probation pay, and also highlights the need for pay reform to align with wider changes to professionalising probation and making the service more robust in the new operating context. The claim is consistent with the ideas emerging from the NPS Pay Reform talks and at this stage we remain positive and hopeful that these will make significant steps towards addressing the structural weaknesses as set out in the document.
More news to follow as soon as we have some.
Here is the pay claim in full Cover Letter Pay Claim
Loss of confidence in shared services and NPS HR functions
Another letter to the Minister has been signed off, this time on the disgraceful and shambolic service provision by SSCL and a host of unresolved problems we have laid on NOMS (as was) doors for ages in some cases. Here’s just one reason why, but see the list of shame below to see just what we have been up against.
‘I have a new member just joined as PSO in her first week. She has no contract, no staff number and NPS haven't even taken her bank details for her wages. She couldn't tell me what her pay is.’
The attachment to the letter to the Minister shows the following problems faced by our members mainly in the NPS, but some of those who are now situated in CRCs.
New Starters not being issued contracts and paid at all (NPS)
Non-payment of pro-rata pay awards to staff who left during the year from 2014-15; 2015-16; and potentially 2016-17 (CRC & NPS)
Failure to include holiday pay in wage and pension calculations for Sessional Staffs since 2014. (NPS & CRC)
Non-payment or incorrect payment of wages, including:
Tax and NI wrong upon appointment
Tax and NI wrong upon change of hours
Basic pay wrong when starting maternity
(Legacy for CRCs accepted – NPS & CRCs)
Failure to calculate compensation correctly when dismissing staff on ‘capability’ grounds, including misapplying CS rules on Pay in Lieu of Notice. These drag on for months as no-one takes responsibility. (NPS)
Taking months to resolve pay errors due to automatic emergency payments, tax and NI adjustments and automatic recoveries complicating things and cutting across human actions. (NPS)
‘Red site’ pay policy not being applied for existing staff so leapfrogging occurs, undermining efforts to address recruitment and retention. (NPS)
Possible non-progression issues as the pay data shared with union’s shows too many staff at or near pay minima. (NPS)
PENSIONS
Non-payment of contributions relating to non-payment of previous pay awards to mid-year leavers (see above) (CRC & NPS)
Miscalculation of payments and non-payment of contributions for additional work since 2014 - especially regarding Sessional staff. (CRC & NPS)
Fettering of discretion in relation to application of the 85 year-rule. (NPS)
Failure to support and process ill-health retirement applications in legacy cases for CRCs dating between 1st April 2014 and 1st February 2015 (NPS and CRC)
CONTRACTS
Staff in NPS roles working alongside NOMS employees or in prison settings being offered NOMS contracts containing the wrong terms and conditions -e.g. LGPS but NOMS leave; wrong pay band; etc. (NPS)
Jobs earmarked for TUPE transfer in Approved Premises being advertised on MoJ sites at the wrong pay band, and below the National Minimum Wage prompting suspicion of fettering the waking night cover contract negotiation process and undermining TUPE. (NPS)
SSCL advising Line Managers that NPS staff have 13 weeks’ notice instead of 12, with implications for notice pay in long term sick and capability cases. (This is an ongoing issue) (NPS)
Miscalculation of length of service for individuals (NPS)
Staff re-entering probation after a break in service being told “they don’t exist” and not offered contracts due to a loss of HR records. (NPS)
Incorrect calculation and payment of maternity leave for NPS staff working in NOMS and/or prisons (NPS)
SICK PAY
Staff being consistently told that sick pay and trigger points will be calculated over a 4 year rolling period and not any 12 consecutive months (NPS)
RECRUITMENT
Staff told to turn up at sites to start work without staff at that site knowing when to expect them via the National Recruitment Centre (NPS)
Staff notified of start date before vetting is cleared and then being put on notice when clearance not forthcoming . (NPS)
DISABILITY & AT USERS
Routine failures to implement OH report recommendations (NPS)
ICT MELTDOWN & WORKLOAD PRESSURES INCREASED
Includes offices suddenly losing all telephones and ICT
Whether all this is the fault of SSCL (and let’s not forget there are many staff who are doing their best in chaotic circumstances not of their making) or whether it’s down to HR or a combination thereof, I have told the Minister that it does not exactly inspire confidence.
E3 phase 2 Napo feedback
Against all this it’s a wonder that there is any coherent work going on in the NPS as it moves to phase 2 of its Operational Masterplan otherwise known as E3. Anyway we have this week sent HMPPS management our take on the difficulties that we foresee here, and we will publish these to members shortly.
Sunday, 9 April 2017
Prison Reform 4
I notice the Justice Committee are not overly-impressed with Liz Truss's prison reforms:-
Prison governor empowerment: greater clarity neededThe Government's reforms relating to prison performance and empowerment of prison governors, many of which are due to come into effect in April, are to be welcomed in principle, but require greater clarity and risk mitigation, says the Justice Committee report.
Read the report summary
Read the report conclusions and recommendations
Read the full report: Prison reform: governor empowerment and prison performance
Chair's Comments
Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill MP said:
"Governor empowerment and changes to prison performance are central to the Government's prison reform programme, which it describes as "the biggest overhaul in a generation" – but the lack of clarity about how some of these reforms will work in practice remains a cause for concern.
Without support from the people who are operating prisons the reforms are unlikely to be effective. The Government must seek productive engagement with prison staff and governors through regular meetings, enabling their concerns and ideas to feed into the implementation of the reforms."
Policy and operations
From 1 April, the Ministry of Justice has been responsible for prisons commissioning and policy, with the new HM Prison and Probation Service responsible for operational management. The Committee heard concerns that this separation could result in governors and the Secretary of State receiving conflicting advice. The report notes that this lack of clarity could make it harder to see what is going wrong in prisons and why, and confusion about responsibilities could make prisons less safe and effective. The Committee seeks clarification from the Government about how this will work in practice.
Performance agreements
Under the new reforms, Governors will be accountable through three year performance agreements they sign with the Secretary of State. These are based on four new performance standards which reflect the purpose of prisons included in the Prisons and Courts Bill; public protection; safety and order; reform; and preparing for life after prison.
The Committee supports the principle of transparency about what constitutes good performance: Governors should know the standards by which they will be judged and the public should know what constitutes a successful prison.
However, the report notes that it is not clear how the proposed interventions in cases of poor performance differ from current actions taken, and how they will operate in future – including whether public prisons could be privatised or vice versa , and it remains unclear what processes exist to identify poor performance at an early stage.
Performance agreements were supposed to be put in place in a third of prisons from April 2017, but the Prison Governors Association advised its members against signing them.
The report seeks information from the Government in its response on how many agreements have been signed, and how it will proceed if they are not signed.
The Ministry of Justice will publish official statistics on prison performance against the new performance standards, and the report recommends that the Ministry should use these data to understand more fully the factors underpinning poor and high performance, to inform practice across the estate.
Governor empowerment
The Committee is generally supportive of the principle of greater governor empowerment but has not seen any evidence that it will lead to better outcomes for prisoners, and notes that the first six reform prisons, which began operating in July 2016, will only be evaluated after the reforms take effect across the prison estate.
Issues raised in the report include:
Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill MP said:
"Governor empowerment and changes to prison performance are central to the Government's prison reform programme, which it describes as "the biggest overhaul in a generation" – but the lack of clarity about how some of these reforms will work in practice remains a cause for concern.
Without support from the people who are operating prisons the reforms are unlikely to be effective. The Government must seek productive engagement with prison staff and governors through regular meetings, enabling their concerns and ideas to feed into the implementation of the reforms."
Policy and operations
From 1 April, the Ministry of Justice has been responsible for prisons commissioning and policy, with the new HM Prison and Probation Service responsible for operational management. The Committee heard concerns that this separation could result in governors and the Secretary of State receiving conflicting advice. The report notes that this lack of clarity could make it harder to see what is going wrong in prisons and why, and confusion about responsibilities could make prisons less safe and effective. The Committee seeks clarification from the Government about how this will work in practice.
Performance agreements
Under the new reforms, Governors will be accountable through three year performance agreements they sign with the Secretary of State. These are based on four new performance standards which reflect the purpose of prisons included in the Prisons and Courts Bill; public protection; safety and order; reform; and preparing for life after prison.
The Committee supports the principle of transparency about what constitutes good performance: Governors should know the standards by which they will be judged and the public should know what constitutes a successful prison.
However, the report notes that it is not clear how the proposed interventions in cases of poor performance differ from current actions taken, and how they will operate in future – including whether public prisons could be privatised or vice versa , and it remains unclear what processes exist to identify poor performance at an early stage.
Performance agreements were supposed to be put in place in a third of prisons from April 2017, but the Prison Governors Association advised its members against signing them.
The report seeks information from the Government in its response on how many agreements have been signed, and how it will proceed if they are not signed.
The Ministry of Justice will publish official statistics on prison performance against the new performance standards, and the report recommends that the Ministry should use these data to understand more fully the factors underpinning poor and high performance, to inform practice across the estate.
Governor empowerment
The Committee is generally supportive of the principle of greater governor empowerment but has not seen any evidence that it will lead to better outcomes for prisoners, and notes that the first six reform prisons, which began operating in July 2016, will only be evaluated after the reforms take effect across the prison estate.
Issues raised in the report include:
- Risk of increased prisoner complaints if greater autonomy and deregulation is not balanced with a need for consistently applied minimum standards;
- Availability of support and development opportunities for governors before the reforms take effect;
- Need to co-ordinate contributions of agencies involved in providing services relating to rehabilitation at a local level, including prisons and probation.
Commissioning
The Committee also welcomes the principle of giving governors greater involvement in commissioning goods and services, as this could encourage innovation and lead to better outcomes for prisoners.
However, this must be evidence based and rigorously evaluated, and procurement processes as well as performance agreements must be designed to facilitate innovation.
The Committee recognises that devolution of responsibility for commissioning to governors is likely to lead to differences in service provision, and it could also lead to an increase in overall costs as economies of scale could be lost.
The report concludes that there is a need for central oversight, and recommends that the MoJ put measures in place to ensure that education, family services and offending behaviour programmes are aligned across the estate to enable prisoners to progress through their sentence and to ensure these programmes meet minimum quality standards; and that the appropriate level to commission goods and services should be decided on a case by case basis.
Finally, low morale among prison staff and governors could affect implementation. The Prison Officers’ Association and the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) have both recently taken actions suggestive of discontent among prison staff and governors, including staff protests in November and an attempted strike in March, as well as a call on governors not to sign the new performance agreement.
The PGA told the Committee that engagement with the MoJ had been “very poor”, with very little consultation about the reforms; the POA reported that their members feel disenfranchised, do not trust Government and senior managers, and that there had not been positive engagement with the MoJ and NOMS. Prisons Minister Sam Gyimah told the Committee that he had had regular meetings with the PGA and POA but admitted that more could be done.
The Committee also welcomes the principle of giving governors greater involvement in commissioning goods and services, as this could encourage innovation and lead to better outcomes for prisoners.
However, this must be evidence based and rigorously evaluated, and procurement processes as well as performance agreements must be designed to facilitate innovation.
The Committee recognises that devolution of responsibility for commissioning to governors is likely to lead to differences in service provision, and it could also lead to an increase in overall costs as economies of scale could be lost.
The report concludes that there is a need for central oversight, and recommends that the MoJ put measures in place to ensure that education, family services and offending behaviour programmes are aligned across the estate to enable prisoners to progress through their sentence and to ensure these programmes meet minimum quality standards; and that the appropriate level to commission goods and services should be decided on a case by case basis.
Finally, low morale among prison staff and governors could affect implementation. The Prison Officers’ Association and the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) have both recently taken actions suggestive of discontent among prison staff and governors, including staff protests in November and an attempted strike in March, as well as a call on governors not to sign the new performance agreement.
The PGA told the Committee that engagement with the MoJ had been “very poor”, with very little consultation about the reforms; the POA reported that their members feel disenfranchised, do not trust Government and senior managers, and that there had not been positive engagement with the MoJ and NOMS. Prisons Minister Sam Gyimah told the Committee that he had had regular meetings with the PGA and POA but admitted that more could be done.
--oo00oo--
This shows the Telegraph aren't impressed either:-
New blow to Justice Secretary Liz Truss as MPs say: scrap plans for prison league tables
Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary, has suffered a fresh blow to her authority after a Commons report said her plans for prison league tables should be dropped. The Justice Committee said league tables were “not a useful means” to assess prison performance and would “mask” problems within jails.
Ms Truss is already facing calls to be stripped of her second role as Lord Chancellor after concerns about the performance of her department. In recent weeks she has also been accused by the Lord Chief Justice of “misleading” the public over rape trials, while the President of Supreme Court said she had failed in a duty to defend the judiciary.
The latest criticism came in a parliamentary report that reviewed Government proposals for improving prison performance. The idea of league tables for prisons was first mooted by the then prime minister David Cameron in a speech more than a year ago, before being adopted as policy by Ms Truss in a white paper in November.
She said at the time: "We will publish league tables to show which prisons are making real progress in getting offenders off drugs and developing the education and skills they need to get work." Changes which include giving prison governors far greater autonomy - some of which come into force this month - are intended to address surging levels of violence and self-harm behind bars.
In its report, the committee said it encountered "mixed views" about the plans among witnesses who gave evidence to it. It said: “In particular, there was some scepticism about the purpose of this approach in a prison context, where there is no consumer; about their value in driving governor performance, and about the meaning that can be attached to a single measure of performance.”
MPs concluded that league tables, as they were conceived in the white paper, are "not a useful means to compare prison performance or drive improvement". The report said: "A single overarching assessment of prison performance will mask many aspects of performance. In our view it is more important that the Ministry seeks to understand more fully the factors underpinning poor and high performance and uses the learning to devise lessons to improve practice which are disseminated transparently across the estate."
The MPs said they would prefer to see the Ministry publish performance data rather than league tables. The committee also said that low morale among prison staff and governors could threaten the success of the programme.
Conservative MP Bob Neill, chairman of the committee, said: "Governor empowerment and changes to prison performance are central to the Government's prison reform programme, which it describes as the biggest overhaul in a generation - but the lack of clarity about how some of these reforms will work in practice remains a cause for concern."
From this month, the Ministry of Justice takes responsibility for prisons commissioning and policy, while the new HM Prison and Probation Service is responsible for the operational management of prisons. The committee said: “It is not clear to us what will happen in cases of poor performance, and how accountability will be attributed.”
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "We welcome this report which supports governor empowerment. We recognise that all prisons are different and that is why we are continuing to work closely with governors and staff to ensure clarity on expected standards and provide ongoing advice. These changes, along with our work to boost safety in prisons by employing 2,500 new prison officers, will help deliver our reforms, which will cut crime and create safer communities."
A Ministry of Justice source said that league tables would give "transparency" but that improvement would be driven by three-year contracts with individual governors that set out what they were expected to achieve.
Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary, has suffered a fresh blow to her authority after a Commons report said her plans for prison league tables should be dropped. The Justice Committee said league tables were “not a useful means” to assess prison performance and would “mask” problems within jails.
Ms Truss is already facing calls to be stripped of her second role as Lord Chancellor after concerns about the performance of her department. In recent weeks she has also been accused by the Lord Chief Justice of “misleading” the public over rape trials, while the President of Supreme Court said she had failed in a duty to defend the judiciary.
The latest criticism came in a parliamentary report that reviewed Government proposals for improving prison performance. The idea of league tables for prisons was first mooted by the then prime minister David Cameron in a speech more than a year ago, before being adopted as policy by Ms Truss in a white paper in November.
She said at the time: "We will publish league tables to show which prisons are making real progress in getting offenders off drugs and developing the education and skills they need to get work." Changes which include giving prison governors far greater autonomy - some of which come into force this month - are intended to address surging levels of violence and self-harm behind bars.
In its report, the committee said it encountered "mixed views" about the plans among witnesses who gave evidence to it. It said: “In particular, there was some scepticism about the purpose of this approach in a prison context, where there is no consumer; about their value in driving governor performance, and about the meaning that can be attached to a single measure of performance.”
MPs concluded that league tables, as they were conceived in the white paper, are "not a useful means to compare prison performance or drive improvement". The report said: "A single overarching assessment of prison performance will mask many aspects of performance. In our view it is more important that the Ministry seeks to understand more fully the factors underpinning poor and high performance and uses the learning to devise lessons to improve practice which are disseminated transparently across the estate."
The MPs said they would prefer to see the Ministry publish performance data rather than league tables. The committee also said that low morale among prison staff and governors could threaten the success of the programme.
Conservative MP Bob Neill, chairman of the committee, said: "Governor empowerment and changes to prison performance are central to the Government's prison reform programme, which it describes as the biggest overhaul in a generation - but the lack of clarity about how some of these reforms will work in practice remains a cause for concern."
From this month, the Ministry of Justice takes responsibility for prisons commissioning and policy, while the new HM Prison and Probation Service is responsible for the operational management of prisons. The committee said: “It is not clear to us what will happen in cases of poor performance, and how accountability will be attributed.”
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "We welcome this report which supports governor empowerment. We recognise that all prisons are different and that is why we are continuing to work closely with governors and staff to ensure clarity on expected standards and provide ongoing advice. These changes, along with our work to boost safety in prisons by employing 2,500 new prison officers, will help deliver our reforms, which will cut crime and create safer communities."
A Ministry of Justice source said that league tables would give "transparency" but that improvement would be driven by three-year contracts with individual governors that set out what they were expected to achieve.
Saturday, 8 April 2017
CRC Dispute - Latest 22
Joint statement by Napo, Unison and GMB unions:-
JTU09-17
For distribution to all trade union members across the three Working Links owned Community Rehabilitation Companies
No to further Job Cuts...yes to fair play for staff… probation trade unions standing up for you!
DISPUTE LATEST - Talks set to resume but dispute is still live
At long last the National Negotiating Council Joint Secretaries have issued a letter to all the parties in the dispute recommending a route for the resumption of discussion on a number of key issues impacting on staff and operations. Meanwhile, the unions wish to make it clear that until we see tangible evidence that Aurelius/Working Links intend to engage meaningfully with us, then the dispute that has been running since last summer will continue
Joint Secretaries determination
Whilst the National Negotiating Council itself has ceased to exist following the withdrawal by nearly all of the Employers, the dispute with the employer was established before this happened and a meeting took place between the parties, the Joint Secretaries and a representative from NOMS Contract and Commercial Directorate in January.
Given the difficulties that had been experienced in the talks held under the auspices of ACAS there was a huge amount of written evidence that needed to be taken into account and this has contributed to the delay in being in a position to issue news on a collective basis. The Joint Secretarial determination is attached to this letter and the unions are now considering the initial response that we have received from Aurelius/Working Links to this and our future strategy, and we will report further to members as soon as we can. If meetings are held in your branch or workplace, do try to take part and there is an ideal opportunity on 28th April on International Workers Memorial day to join in some union lunchtime demonstrations about workloads. News on that to follow.
Meanwhile, arrangements are being made to set a date for the resumption of talks where we hope it will be possible to deal with some urgently pressing issues. If these exchanges go well our aim is to try and work through the long list of subjects that the Joint Secretaries have identified as being central to any chances of resolving this long running and in our view unnecessary dispute.
What the dispute has achieved so far
It’s a fact that just being in dispute does not in itself mean that employers (whoever they are) will simply stop trying to treat staff with disrespect and seek to implement their plans.
Over the course of this dispute the union’s efforts with tremendous support from our members has contributed to the following:
We have made our views very clear over many months as to why this dispute has arisen, but it’s worth remembering that we requested the employers to pause the processing of the applications that staff had made to leave under the inferior voluntary severance scheme instead of the EVR arrangements that were previously awarded to other staff, so that we could work jointly to establish adequate resourcing and deployment of people to provide a decent service to clients and the public. This was about taking up a principled position to defend jobs and seeking to secure a fair level of compensation for people who had decided to leave their employment.
That's the role of a trade union, and so is exposing the fact that the Voluntary Severance Scheme that was offered by Working Links/Aurelius was a blatant action which denuded some of their workforce from their just entitlements. At the same time we urged the employers to invoke the existing NNC agreed redundancy policies as far back as last year.
We stand ready to take part in meaningful dialogue and will be urging the employer to do the same.
Join a trade union now!
We will seek to issue further updates as soon as there is something to report, but the above commentary makes it very clear that it is more important than ever that staff across the three CRC's belong to a trade union. The dispute is not over and now is an ideal time to see another increase in union membership to help us speak from a position of strength.
JTU09-17
For distribution to all trade union members across the three Working Links owned Community Rehabilitation Companies
No to further Job Cuts...yes to fair play for staff… probation trade unions standing up for you!
DISPUTE LATEST - Talks set to resume but dispute is still live
At long last the National Negotiating Council Joint Secretaries have issued a letter to all the parties in the dispute recommending a route for the resumption of discussion on a number of key issues impacting on staff and operations. Meanwhile, the unions wish to make it clear that until we see tangible evidence that Aurelius/Working Links intend to engage meaningfully with us, then the dispute that has been running since last summer will continue
Joint Secretaries determination
Whilst the National Negotiating Council itself has ceased to exist following the withdrawal by nearly all of the Employers, the dispute with the employer was established before this happened and a meeting took place between the parties, the Joint Secretaries and a representative from NOMS Contract and Commercial Directorate in January.
Given the difficulties that had been experienced in the talks held under the auspices of ACAS there was a huge amount of written evidence that needed to be taken into account and this has contributed to the delay in being in a position to issue news on a collective basis. The Joint Secretarial determination is attached to this letter and the unions are now considering the initial response that we have received from Aurelius/Working Links to this and our future strategy, and we will report further to members as soon as we can. If meetings are held in your branch or workplace, do try to take part and there is an ideal opportunity on 28th April on International Workers Memorial day to join in some union lunchtime demonstrations about workloads. News on that to follow.
Meanwhile, arrangements are being made to set a date for the resumption of talks where we hope it will be possible to deal with some urgently pressing issues. If these exchanges go well our aim is to try and work through the long list of subjects that the Joint Secretaries have identified as being central to any chances of resolving this long running and in our view unnecessary dispute.
What the dispute has achieved so far
It’s a fact that just being in dispute does not in itself mean that employers (whoever they are) will simply stop trying to treat staff with disrespect and seek to implement their plans.
Over the course of this dispute the union’s efforts with tremendous support from our members has contributed to the following:
- No compulsory redundancies (notwithstanding the shambolic way in which the employer has conducted its staff reduction policy which has caused massive divisions between employees, many of whom have been denied their reasonable expectations over Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy - EVR)
- A reduction in the overall staff cuts that were first planned, clearly proving our point that these were not properly thought through as illustrated by the subsequent and often desperate attempts to recruit staff.
- Notice to NOMS (now HMPPS) Contract Managers that a thorough review should be undertaken of certain operational practices such as those which have recently caused the employer to hastily issue case management guidance to staff (this has yet to be agreed with the unions)
- Considerable and recent media interest in the Aurelius/Working Links operation (Channel 4, BBC TV and Radio Wales and BBC South West TV) which has featured the unions concerns over workloads, staff morale and public safety. Here we have been able (with the courageous support of members and former members) to illustrate our belief that the Operational Model is costing our members jobs, diminishing the future capacity of the three CRC's to provide even a basic service to clients and, until we see cast iron evidence to the contrary, represents a risk to public safety.
- Interest from an increasing number of MP’s and the Welsh Assembly into what has been going on since Aurelius/Working Links took on the CRC contracts
- The inclusion of the difficulties that members are encountering and our lack of confidence in the Operational Model being brought to the attention of Government Ministers and the Justice Select Committee whose members are especially interested about our concerns but, as importantly, our positive suggestions to improve the operational situation which sadly the employers chose not to join us in common cause.
- The opportunity for the unions to brief HM inspectorate of Probation of our concerns prior to further inspection work
- Specific advice being sought from the unions lawyers which we intend to issue for members individual protection very shortly. This follows on from the unions lawyer’s advising the employer of their legal responsibilities to which we await a response
- Input into the current and very crucial Probation Service Review that is at the final stages prior to reporting directly to Ministers where we have been able to illustrate the problems that our members have and are still facing
- Many members following our advice to stand firm and not accept variation to their contracts unless and until the unions have had the requisite opportunity for consultation and negotiation as set out in the National Staff Protections Agreement which we maintain forms part of individual contracts of employment.
We have made our views very clear over many months as to why this dispute has arisen, but it’s worth remembering that we requested the employers to pause the processing of the applications that staff had made to leave under the inferior voluntary severance scheme instead of the EVR arrangements that were previously awarded to other staff, so that we could work jointly to establish adequate resourcing and deployment of people to provide a decent service to clients and the public. This was about taking up a principled position to defend jobs and seeking to secure a fair level of compensation for people who had decided to leave their employment.
That's the role of a trade union, and so is exposing the fact that the Voluntary Severance Scheme that was offered by Working Links/Aurelius was a blatant action which denuded some of their workforce from their just entitlements. At the same time we urged the employers to invoke the existing NNC agreed redundancy policies as far back as last year.
We stand ready to take part in meaningful dialogue and will be urging the employer to do the same.
Join a trade union now!
We will seek to issue further updates as soon as there is something to report, but the above commentary makes it very clear that it is more important than ever that staff across the three CRC's belong to a trade union. The dispute is not over and now is an ideal time to see another increase in union membership to help us speak from a position of strength.
(Note - the letter referred to will follow in a subsequent post - Ed)
Friday, 7 April 2017
Court IT
Yesterday's post seems to have struck a cord with practitioners amply demonstrating just how far back probation IT problems go and how TR was never going to work with such a crap system. We know the MoJ has 'form' in mis-handling commissioning and according to this on 'The Register' website, things don't seem to be going well with the court IT project:-
Hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted on plans to digitise the criminal justice system due to the mismanagement of a key programme that has so far delivered little value to the taxpayer, according to multiple insiders.
The Common Platform Programme (CPP) was supposed to be complete by March 2019. However, a spokeswoman from HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) said the programme will not be complete until 2020 at a revised cost of £270m.
The project began in 2014 with the intention of creating a unified platform across the criminal justice system to allow the Crown Prosecution Service and courts to more effectively manage cases. Programme director Loveday Ryder had described the project as a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to modernise the criminal justice system.
But The Register understands that over the last 30 months, a series of independent and internal reviews have documented the programme's failings, with all the key milestones having been missed.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), which monitors large programmes across government, recently flagged the programme as an amber-red risk, according to sources. That means delivery on time and on budget is unlikely. An internal review last year described the culture within the programme as "toxic".
Yet huge amounts of cash have continued to be signed off, despite sources claiming only one meaningful service has so far been delivered: an online self-service system for magistrates to manage their sittings.
One crucial component of the system, an identity access management system to allow professionals to log on and view cases remotely, has yet to be delivered despite £40m having been spent on it. Without that portal, users will be unable to access cases online – the main purpose of the project.
Sources say the programme has been overly focused on building the platform in house, rather than buying off-the-shelf software. They describe what has been produced so far as "vapourware".
Particular scorn has been directed at the so-called "agile experts" who have been in charge of managing the programme. "There is no plan, no artefacts, no direction, just constant excuses," said one insider. "How they can still be in place as well as still being allowed to recruit 'experts' with absolutely no delivery after 30 months is scandalous."
Multiple sources have also questioned the potential conflict of interest in members of the management board also owning companies to have contractors working on the programme.
"The continued waste on trying to deliver this programme is outrageous," said one insider, who asked why the programme should be allowed to continue in its current form – or indeed at all.
The CPP is part of a broader £1bn programme across the Ministry of Justice to make courts fully digital. That has already been identified by chief exec of the civil service John Manzoni as one of the biggest projects keeping him awake at night. Those concerns have also been echoed by Public Accounts Committee head Meg Hillier.
Live services so far include: an online make a plea programme which allows people to plead guilty or not guilty to traffic offences; a digital markup tool for legal advisors to record case results in court, which is being tested by magistrates courts in Essex; and the Magistrates Rota.
The Register understands that since then the project has failed to progress further. One insider said that if the programme were following proper agile principles, by this stage there ought to be at least a dozen meaningful services available across the criminal justice system.
Last year the IPA also gave the project an amber/red rating, based on assessment in September 2015. It said this reflected the "complexity of the programme and the innovative use of agile development principles".
The Register asked the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS why so much cash has been spent; what actions it intends to take to address the serious governance problems raised; and why money continued to be signed off on a programme that has so far failed to deliver.
In a boiler plate response, an HMCTS spokeswoman said: "The Common Platform Programme is a partnership between HMCTS, the Crown Prosecution Service and police and has strong support from the judiciary.
"It provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to design and build a fully connected criminal courtroom by 2020. This will enable practitioners to access and share relevant criminal case management information and make the best use of technology such as video links to improve the experience for victims and witnesses."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)