Titanic Deck Chairs Rearranged

Thanks go to the reader for forwarding yesterday's Interserve news sent to all staff:- 

Dear Colleague

As part of Fit for Growth and our ongoing transformation, we have taken the decision to move our Citizen Services business into our Support Services division with immediate effect. This consolidation reflects our continuing journey towards One Interserve, as we create a more effective and simplified business providing Support Services, Construction and Equipment Services.

The two Managing Directors for Citizen Services - Chris Peel and I - will both sit on the Support Services Senior Leadership team reporting directly into Debbie White. In the short term, the business Development and Marketing teams will be reporting into Chris, the Legal Commercial and Projects team will be reporting into me, and Steve Jones will be reporting into Lynn Mawdsley who will be joining the company on 2 January 2019 as Deputy Chief Financial Officer.

Yvonne Thomas, Managing Director, Citizens Services will be leaving the company at the end of December to set up a new venture. Yvonne joined Interserve seven years ago to set up the Justice business and joined the Executive Team to lead the Citizens Services division in 2016. 

Debbie White, CEO Interserve, shared: "With clear goals and our strategic priorities now in place, the time is right for us to move our Citizen Services business into our Support Services division. I'd like to thank Yvonne for her contribution to the business, unwavering commitment and strong leadership through the challenging period we've recently seen and wish her well in her future endeavours."

Your senior leaders have been briefed on these business changes. If you have any questions please feel free to speak to them directly or your line manager in the first instance. 

Kind regards,

Ian Mulholland     

--oo00oo--

Meanwhile Private Eye continues to report on the probation omnishambles:-

Time Up for Spurr and Stewart?

Whilst we are otherwise engaged in Christmas-associated matters, the blog will keep ticking-over in the background with nothing much new to report or discuss. But I notice the soon-to-be-departed Michael Spurr gave his winding-up thoughts to the Justice Committee recently, and Rory Stewart might not be far behind. This on Converse Prison News:-    

Michael Spurr: Reflecting on 35 years in the Prison Service

Women jail staff are as likely to be attacked as their male colleagues after long-standing “norms” disappeared from life behind bars, the head of the prison service has warned.

Reflecting on changes during his 35-year career in the system, Michael Spurr noted that for a long time, male inmates would not hit female officers. But, giving evidence at the Commons Justice Committee, he said: “Over the last 10 years, that has changed – there’s pure equality. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time you get hit, for things that are quite trivial today compared to previously, which would have been dealt with potentially by an expletive rather than a punch. Those are norms that are changing.”

Mr Spurr also flagged up the influence of technology and social media as he outlined how changes in society have filtered through to prisons. He said: “Social interaction isn’t as it was. People are so used to engaging in media. When you allow people out of cell, unstructured time with adults engaging with one another was the norm. Younger prisoners find that much more difficult.”

Issues relating to mental health and drug use in the community have a bearing on what goes on behind bars, added Mr Spurr, who will leave his role as chief executive of HM Prisons & Probation Service next year.

At the same evidence session, Prisons Minister Rory Stewart admitted he faces a battle to keep his job after he pledged to resign unless a drive to tackle violence and drugs at struggling jails succeeds. Mr Stewart declared in August that he would quit if there was no improvement in safety standards at 10 establishments hit by “acute” problems within a year.

Describing the latest estate-wide violence statistics as “very, very worrying”, he said: “I have promised to resign unless we turn that graph round on violence in those 10 key prisons. At the moment, that graph is going in the wrong direction for me.”

Latest prison safety figures for England and Wales show there were a record 32,559 assault incidents in total in the 12 months to June, up 20% from the previous year. Assaults against staff increased by over a quarter (27%) to 9,485 incidents.

Mr Stewart said he believed there are some “green shoots”, but he told the committee: “It’s going to be a tough fight because we are having to work with a situation that is not just violence in our prisons – assaults on police officers are going up, assaults on ambulance workers are going up.”

He re-stated his belief that very short custodial sentences can be counter-productive. He said: “The wrong kind of short sentence may feel good in the short term because you feel you are banging someone up. But just putting someone in prison for a few days, a couple of weeks – it’s long enough to damage them, it’s not long enough to change them.”

In other comments, Mr Stewart disclosed that an electronic tag which allows GPS monitoring of offenders in the community has now “gone live”, and floated the idea of setting up charitable foundations through which local residents, particularly those in “quite wealthy communities”, could contribute “philanthropically” to their local prison.

Time To Ground TR2

Those with long memories will recall the sad fate of the TSR2 experimental aircraft. Thanks go to the reader for pointing me in the direction of the following summary discourse by Dean Rogers regarding probation's current plight and published on Linkedin. There's time to ground TR2 even before takeoff:-   

It's Time To Intervene - Repeat Offenders Are Running Probation

Everyone with an interest in probation, from the National Audit Office to the Public Accounts or Justice Select Committees, have condemned the catastrophic failure of the MoJ’s “Transforming Rehabilitation Revolution”. This brainchild of Chris Grayling saw the abolition of Probation Trusts in 2014. Local provision was split - privatised Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) now look after low and medium risk Offenders whilst high-risk Offenders are supervised from Whitehall and the National Probation Service (NPS).

Government programmes often go wrong and fail to meet political expectations or promises to taxpayers, but the scale of failure in this instance makes it a model in the dangers of poor governance. It’s failed all parties on all levels:

• Contractors were sold on empty promises, the NAO identifying projected losses of £400M+ over the original 7-year contracts. The rush to beat a political timetable didn’t allow for piloting so the programme crashed and burned.
• Predictions that work would be shared 70:30 between the private and public sectors was evidently wrong before any contracts were let. It’s turned out to be nearer 40:60. CRCs cut staff to break even. The NPS have thousands of vacancies, with staff burning-out from only dealing with high risk cases.
• The split in local services complicated information sharing and undermined trust between local agencies. This combined with staffing failures contributes to serious further offences rising by 25% in the last year – probation has got more dangerous and expensive for the taxpayer.
• Establish partnerships with the 3rd sector were broken and driven out of the system. Clinks research shows where charities remain engaged many are not being paid.
• Improved support for those being released to link them straight into drug, alcohol and DV programmes whilst minimising the risk of homelessness or unemployment (known as Through the Gate) have been described as less effective than doing nothing by HMI Probation.

In short, a combination of ideology trumping reason, avoidance of testing and evidence, shocking financial planning and weak contract management meant the whole revolution was doomed. Government admitted as much earlier in 2018 - after a damning Justice Select Committee report, Government announced contracts were being terminated early.

However, hopes of a TR Counter-Revolution built around lessons learned are being dashed. Suddenly the impossible looks possible – the MoJ are conspiring to make the situation potentially even worse! The “plan” is to rush to replace the new contracts in record time. The proposed model retains the core split whilst stretching the local – 21 contracts will be merged into 10, albeit each area overseen by an expensive new civil servant to manage the contract challenges…literally just making the problems bigger.

HOW?

• How, any sane person with a passing interest in public safety and/or sound management of public finances may ask, can they be planning on yet again:
• Tendering contracts, in less than a year, before they’ve identified what exactly is required from either CRCs or the NPS and/or worked out how much this would cost to do safely?
• Coming-up with a model that increases the current pressures of staff by threatening new staff transfers, complex harmonisations of terms and conditions, and promoting uncertainty and competition around pay and pensions with little to no time to address these before contracts are re-let?
• Selling-off core services to providers who now have a proven track record of failure, with Inspectors deeming 5 of the 7 current providers to have contract areas that “require improvement” or worse?
• Making little to no provision for the 3rd Sector to safely or sustainably enter the market?
• Ignoring professional input into their “consultation”, with staff, unions, academics and other experts all screaming that the most critical part of a new model should be re-unifying services based upon local accountability? What works in Hackney will be different to Hereford, Newcastle has different needs to Norfolk.

This isn’t rational or reasonable so how can this be happening again?

Firstly, the public allow them to get away with it. Probation isn’t popular because offenders are unpopular. People don’t want to think about or engage with offenders. This isn’t unique to England and Wales. International research with data from 233 countries asking over 2M people what they thought the life-saving properties of autonomous vehicles should be in situations where death is unavoidable found that people would save dogs before criminals – although criminals marginally came ahead of cats who could presumably use their 9 lives to save themselves.

This gives politicians a license to continue re-offending in their management of probation. They think they’ll get away with it and if they are caught they’ll pay a short term fine then people’s attention span will drift. This is the mentality of a hardened gangster.

This is amplified by the wider political chaos and uncertainty in these troubled and volatile times. When uncertainty has saturated all areas of governance it’s hardly surprising that attempts to wipe up probation’s mess end up just spreading the sticky mess wider and further.

Secondly, those who do care are almost neo-Saints, used to putting up with chaos and struggle, trained not to judge, and not likely to give in until their flame has exhausted itself. This is exploited by politicians. During Grayling’s revolution most probation leaders, to their eternal shame, stood on the side-lines and watched in silence apart from the occasional “Tut”. Napo made some creative alliances with the legal profession angered by legal aid cuts, and encouraged the majority of its membership to strike twice, when prior to TR it had only taken strike action 4 times in over a century. But Napo stood alone – even Unison failed to join in their action. Survivors of that campaign are battle weary. Newcomers to probation need convincing they can win.

Thirdly, the Government and media like to portray what are complex problems and challenges in easy black and blue terms, getting most excited when someone has died – exactly the wrong cases to most clearly see the problems and actions that further demoralise staff. Even the liberal press, sympathetic to probation, usually only run a probation story when it can run alongside a “Probation is failing” subline when HMI Probation reports consistently say the only thing keeping probation going at all is the unsustainable level of commitment and unending professionalism of staff. Staff don’t want to rally around being told they’re failing. They need a positive message to organise around.

INTERVENING TO STOP ESCALATING RISK

So what can be done or is the TR Counter-Revolution destined to be even more tragic than Grayling’s master-class in how not to govern? There are grounds for optimism, such as:

• Serious money as well as lives are at stake and many players on all sides literally can’t afford to let this go wrong again. Letting or taking poorly formed contracts presents measurable financial risks and the NAO, PAC, JSC and financial press are all over this already, unlike TR1. The Gangsters are vulnerable, having lost their grip on their community.
• Even chaos requires government time and it is unlikely that Gauke could bully TR2 through parliament as Grayling did in the Coalition days. The Gangsters are also divided. If pension complications or the 33% contractual limit for any one provider that were tagged into TR1 require parliamentary testing a block on the crazy timetable can fall into place.
• This time there is an emerging unity amongst the ranks of those opposed to TR2. The biggest risk in TR2 is the timetable and Gauke’s haste to put something in place - having terminated the contracts early they need to do something. But TR1 was a dogmatic dog-fight between forces pro and anti – privatisation. Now even those who could live with outsourcing (e.g. Charities, local leaders, and even some CRC owners and Napo members working for CRC’s shocked by the experience of NPS staff) stand worried and concerned by Gauke’s haste.

In short, there are more players involved in the game this time, more people watching and more people paying attention. The political risk and price of getting this wrong are higher for the Government whilst Napo has new ready allies willing to join in and speak-up.

And in the confusion comes Napo’s trump card. Gauke can’t portray Napo and its members as the bad guys this time because, in parallel, the Government are committed to implementing common professional standards across probation (including any contracts) for the first time, supported by aligned pay reform (so far only being funded for the NPS). These standards can’t be designed by politicians or bureaucrats. They inevitably have to turn to Napo members and invite them in to the debate. Members are lined up ready to engage loudly and positively!

A SHORT SHARP CAMPAIGN

This will be a short campaign. Between Christmas 2018 and April 2019, all the big questions must be answered and prices set for the timetable to progress anything like safely. In the middle of this, Gauke has to report back to the JSC in parliament. Between April and October 2019, “bidders” will assess their risks and the market will need to justify and sustain itself under public and parliamentary scrutiny.

Napo’s message to Gauke and his crew is a short, simple and clear one. Just pause. Stop and take stock. You don’t have to rush and repeat Grayling’s mistakes. To get TR through the MoJ created the CRCs and ran them for 8 months before handing them to private contractors. Take those that are failing back. Put everything else on hold whilst you test what will work and what that costs going forward. Take your time identifying the snags – like TUPE and harmonisation issues - before you try and sell anything.

The ideology is all on one side. None of us can afford to allow the Gangsters to win again.

Dean Rogers

Assistant General Secretary Napo

Latest From Napo 183

Here we have the latest blog post from Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence:-

Why CRC pay is a top priority

Its hardly surprising that the NPS pay out has caused some predictable resentment among our members in the CRC estate.

In my letter to the Secretary of State David Gauke - CLICK HERE - which picked up on the mandate given to us by the AGM in Southport, I made it very clear that the NPS pay modernisation deal must be replicated and spelt out very clearly why we are campaigning to achieve pay parity between NPS and CRC staff.

Its an issue that I have raised personally with Justice Select Committee Chair Bob Neill MP, the Probation Programme Engagement Forum where we are arguing for contract adjustments now and in any future versions that see the light of day in 2020. I am also signing off a personalised letters to every CRC Chief Executive within the next few days which will seek their support in lobbying the MoJ for more cash.

Our campaign and communications team here are working on specific recruitment material for CRC staff which will make it very clear that pay parity won’t simply be achieved by us simply shouting louder and why increasing membership density is an important factor in making employers sit up and take notice that their workforce will no longer be prepared to take every rubbish pay offer that comes their way.

Struggle

All of this as I have said on numerous occasions, will be a struggle. If further proof were needed then take a look at the reply just in from David Gauke to my earlier letter which trots out the same insulting response that we hear from any number of people that the CRC employers are separate entities for pay purposes, despite them having received an additional half a billion pounds in taxpayers funding to shore up their failures.

This situation has been compounded by the refusal of CRC owners to support their chief executives to pay more to their staff and/or at least give a commitment that if they should bid for the proposed new CRC contracts, those bids will include pay parity if it has not been achieved by 2020. Our campaign work locally is being taken forward by your Napo National Officials in partnership with your reps who will be pleased to explain this activity in more detail. I can also say that National Chair Katie Lomas and I are prepared to attend member and prospective member meetings upon request.

Victory is possible

I well remember being involved in similar campaigns in years past. One especially, where the private provider had won contracts from Government and were presiding over a four-tier workforce. As you would expect, the union tried reason, then tried persuasion but then spelt out to staff in very stark terms that it was only strength in numbers that was going to make an immediate impact, rather than a drawn out campaign of expectation that the employer thought it could simply bat off.

Within weeks, union membership had increased from around 30% to nearly 100%. Suddenly the attitude of the employer changed markedly and negotiations started to be taken much more seriously.

Our position was strengthened by an increasing willingness by members to take collective action which, in the end did not become necessary, as we eventually reached a ground breaking deal with the employer.

The message is as stark and simple and relevant today as it was to those workers back then. Join a union and help to empower yourselves.

Napo addresses new starters event

To further reinforce the above point, Last week Katie and I addressed around 130 new starters at an event hosted by the Probation Institute and appreciation to Helen Schofield and her team for the opportunity. Here is what I had to say prior to a hugely enjoyable Q&A.

Napo General Secretary urges new starters to join our pay and reunification campaign

Thursday 6 th December 2018

Good afternoon and many thanks to the Probation Institute for this opportunity to speak with you today at this hugely successful event. Can I also wish you all the very best with your studies as you approach qualification and hope that you have acquired vital knowledge and experience during your time within the service so far. 

With me is Napo National Chair Katie Lomas (a serving practitioner who well understands the challenges that our members are experiencing. Can I say how appreciative we are of the important work carried out by the Institute in what are incredibly testing times for anyone delivering Probation services in a Criminal Justice System. I make no apologies for saying that you have committed to an especially challenging career path but one that performs a vital public service in assisting clients and safeguarding our communities. 

As Helen said earlier, I am the General Secretary of Napo an elected position covering a five year period and I am now six months in already to my second term. 

My duties as the senior elected employee within Napo include the responsibility for assisting our members in Probation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Family Court Service. Typically, my work alongside elected Officers and Napo staff, involves high level interface with government ministers, the senior leadership of the Official Opposition and a multitude of cross party politicians and senior NPS/ HMPPS and MoJ departmental heads. 

I am also the lead spokesperson for Napo in our regular contact with TV and media and, as part of the day job, I also have a negotiating role with the three CRC Contracts in Wales and the South West which keeps me well in touch with the issues being faced by our members.

Within the wider union world, I am on the Executive Committee of the General Federation of Trade Unions and I represent BAME workers from various unions as a member of the TUC General Council. 

I will have a bit to say about Napo a bit later and why I hope you may consider joining us, and Katie and I will be pleased to try and answer any immediate questions that you may have, or you may contact either of us via info@napo.org.uk afterwards.

I wanted to focus on three specific issues which I hope will be of interest to you 

Firstly the landscape 4 years on from Transforming Rehabilitation 

Whether or not TR is the much vaunted revolution that Mr Grayling said it would be, and I could use a variety of adjectives to describe it, there are a litany of problems facing staff wherever they work. 

Within the NPS there are still staff shortages despite the efforts to encourage recruitment and enlarge the diversity base, staff are consistently telling us about the pressures of higher than expected workloads, the impact on their health and for those working in Approved Premises, the dreadful effects of the outsourcing of double waking night cover arrangements. 

Additionally, we have major concerns over the OMIC project on which Katie Lomas leads for Napo. 

Napo and our sister unions recently secured a pay settlement covering NPS staff which represented a long awaited breakthrough on pay modernisation, especially pay progression, where our hard work has helped to cut the time it will take you to reach the top of your payband from 25 years to 6. That achievement has not happened by magic its down to the long term campaign and sheer hard work that Napo has been part of. 

On the back of this we are stepping up our campaign to return to genuine collective bargaining across the NPS and CRC’s so that we have common standards of employment and rates of pay across the two arms of the service which will bring stability and certainty for staff. 

So our message to the CRC Chiefs and the Government is simply: pay up now!

Pay up and bring an end to the scandalous situation where CRC staff are now second best in the pay stakes, pay up now for CRC secondees working in NPS Divisions who are doing equal work of equal value alongside their NPS Colleagues. And If you are working in a CRC then help us to spread that message and increase the pressure on the employers. 

On the back of all this, we think that there is now an incontrovertible case to reunify Probation. 

Napo’s position is that we want to see Probation back in public ownership where it belongs. In Wales, work is being taken back from the failing CRC into the NPS, and we are obviously saying that if this good enough for Wales its good enough for England too! 

In the Oral evidence that I gave to the Justice Select Committee in March, (who have issued a highly critical report demanding improvement to which such as TTG support and Minimum Contact Specification), I said that Napo are committed to working with all politicians to see a community focused, desistance driven probation model, set free from the still Prison-centric HMPPS. 

Alongside this priority is the work that will need to be undertaken to build a Competency Based Framework which formed part of the NPS Pay settlement, to strengthen the Professional aspects of your work and thats why Napo, along with the Probation Institute, are campaigning for a Licence to Practice.

All these issues become even more important as consideration is being given to what happens to the CRC Contracts in 2020 and why we are saying that this Government must not repeat the same mistakes again by remarketing the Probation Service. 

Look, let me be clear, Napo has always been opposed to the privatisation of public services, but I have gone on record before and will again, in saying that not all of the post-TR difficulties are the fault of the CRC owners. 

It was not their fault that the CRC contracts were insufficiently structured and resourced from the outset, or the door being shut meaningful engagement with third sector providers and they're not to blame for a flawed PbR model. 

Of course there are a few things some of them and this government are to blame for; but today my message is one of encouraging everyone with an interest to see how we can work with NPS and CRC Employers to ensure that where service improvements are needed we can try and work together. But that commitment must be matched by CRC owners to engage positively with the trade unions, especially on the issue of pay equity, and by them recognising the imperative to deliver safe operational models, and understand that people must come before profit, and why their hard working staff must be treated with dignity and respect. 

So what might that future model for Probation look like? 

I mentioned the objective of freeing Probation from HMPPS control earlier on, but in Napo’s view we need to campaign for a publicly owned model that embraces the concept of Community Justice.

One that builds on the key principle that its governance structures must be founded and delivered by people who understand the diverse needs of their communities: probation practitioners obviously, and the trade unions and professional bodies but also stakeholders such as the NHS, especially in the fields of mental heath drug and substance abuse, the Judiciary, Regional and Metro Mayors, PCC’s, local councillors, diversity representatives and those organisations in the third sector who are desperate to make a meaningful contribution to help reduce reoffending, but are currently denied the resources to do so. 

Localism was the bedrock of the Probation Service before it became fragmented, and it should be the cornerstone of a new future which encompasses the proud traditions of your profession, one which engenders trust from our communities and does right by the clients it seeks to assist and redirect into making a meaningful contribution to society. 

Its a big ask, but If you are on board with that campaign, I wish you all the best in playing a part achieving that transition. 

Thirdly and finally: What is Napo and why be a member? 

We are, as the title illustrates, a trade union and professional association for Probation and Cafcass staff.

Membership of Napo brings with it access to the Probation Journal and our recently relaunched and highly commended Napo Magazine and regular personalised weekly mail outs and my own Blog postings which seek to give you clarity on the issues that matter to you. These illustrate how Napo is doing its best to help you with issues relating to your employment and professional development. You will also have access to legal support depending on the circumstances and through our Napo Extra membership services you can also access a range of lifestyle discounts and financial advice. 

More information and application forms are easily accessible on the Napo website but I am also grateful to the Institute for their help in making our material available alongside theirs and I urge you to consider joining both our organisations! 

Finally, thank you all for your attention and I am sure that you will enjoy the remainder of today’s activities.

Ian Lawrence

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? 2

You privatise the National Forensic Science Service and just look what happens. This from BBC website:- 

Randox forensics inquiry: Forty drug-driving offences quashed

At least 40 motorists convicted of drug-driving offences have been cleared after evidence of manipulation was found in the forensic testing process. The motorists were banned from driving and in some cases fined, but their convictions have since been overturned. About 10,500 test results are being reviewed after data was allegedly manipulated at Randox Testing Services.

The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) described it as a "most serious breach" of forensic science standards. A further 50 drug-driving cases have been dropped as a result of the alleged data manipulation at the firm's Manchester laboratory. Police suspended all contracts with the company, used by 42 of the UK's 43 forces, in November last year.

Greater Manchester Police has arrested two men, aged 47 and 31, who worked at one of its laboratories. They were arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. Six others have been interviewed under caution, with one remaining under investigation as part of what Justice Minister, Lucy Frazier, described last month as an "expansive" criminal inquiry.
Analysis

The scale of the operation to review the 10,500 Randox cases is unprecedented. It began in January 2017 and is likely to continue until the end of 2019. Randox, which is paying for samples to be re-tested by other laboratories, estimates it will cost the firm £2.5m. Police are also likely to incur costs because of delays to other cases, while motorists whose careers and livelihoods have been affected after being wrongly banned from driving may sue for compensation.

But the most significant impact of this disturbing affair may be on public confidence in forensic science: can we be sure that the test results we almost take for granted are accurate? In total, up to 2,700 cases have been re-analysed so far and two drug-driving cases that resulted in road deaths were referred to the Court of Appeal. Both convictions were upheld but one motorist's sentence was reduced. Two other non-fatal cases involving drug-driving have also been sent to the Court of Appeal. One conviction was quashed and the other has yet to be decided.

Ch Con James Vaughan, NPCC lead on forensics, said he could not remember a forensic science failure "of this magnitude". He said re-testing was taking longer than expected because there was a "chronic shortage" of scientific expertise and accredited laboratories, leading to delays in providing toxicology analysis in unrelated cases of sexual offence and rape.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

As we all know, privatisation of public services is going really well and everyone seems to think Rory Stewart is a really good Prisons minister. What could possibly go wrong? This from Civil Service World:-

Public sector bids barred from next round of prisons contracts, confirms MoJ

Public sector providers will not be allowed to bid for contracts in the next competition to operate prisons, the government has confirmed, with HM Prison and Probation Service only able to provide a comparator to external bidders. Justice minister Rory Stewart announced the launch of the competition, which support plans announced by the Ministry of Justice in June to add up to 10,000 new prisons places, in a written statement to the House of Commons yesterday.

Through the competition, the MoJ will appoint and framework of prison operators, from which it will select the operator for each new prison in shorter ‘call-off’ competitions, he said. The framework will only be open to private companies unless bids do not meet a given standard, Stewart said. The new framework will be used to appoint companies to operate prisons that are already under private management once the existing operators’ contracts run out, and to award contracts for new-build prisons.

The first contracts to be opened to a call-of competition will be two new-build prisons in Wellingborough, in Northamptonshire and Glen Parva in Leicestershire. Construction of both prisons will be funded using public capital. “HMPPS will not bid in the competition but will provide a ‘public sector benchmark’ against which operators’ bids will be rigorously assessed. If bids do not meet our expectations in terms of quality and cost, HMPPS will act as the provider,” Stewart said.

The MoJ announced plans for the Wellingborough facility in 2016, four years after HMP Wellingborough closed, taking with it 600 places. Construction is set to begin in December, so that the prison can open in 2021. The construction of Glen Parva prison was initially intended to be privately-funded, but in last month’s Budget it was announced the government would fund it. The facility will open in 2022. In a written statement earlier this month, Stewart said the public funding would “enable the prison to open earlier than originally planned to meet the needs of the growing and complex prison population.”

The announcement comes at a time when private prisons contracts are coming under intense public scrutiny. In August the Ministry of Justice was forced to take over control of HMP prison from the private contractor G4S after an inspection showed high levels of violence and self-harm. In his statement yesterday, Stewart said the framework “should reinvigorate the prison market by encouraging new providers to enter the custodial arena”.

“It will also enable MoJ to more effectively and efficiently manage a pipeline of competition over the next decade,” he said. Earlier this year, Stewart said the MoJ was expecting the prison population to rise by around 10,000 to 93,000. He said he wanted to reduce “if not eliminate” shorter prison sentences of up to 12 months, although there is no legislation currently in train to make this happen,

Mark Fairhurst, national chair of the POA – the trade union for prison officers and secure psychiatric workers – branded the move to limit bids to private providers an “insult” to taxpayers.

“It’s an absolute disgrace that taxpayers’ money is being used to build prisons to be run by to profiteers, without the public sector being allowed to bid,” he said. “Prisons are not for profit and we’ve proven time and time again that private providers are not fit for purpose,” he said, pointing to the example of HMP Birmingham.

He said the union would fight “tooth and nail” to prevent any publicly-run prisons from transferring into the hands of private operators, which would mean prisons officers who are now civil servants moving into private employment.

“The question that remains now, is are they going to bar G4S and Serco from bidding?” he asked. The two companies, which between them run 10 of the 14 contracted-out prisons across the UK, are both under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office over their running of electronic monitoring contracts.

He also said the union would “insist” the HMP Birmingham remain under public management, and would take “all necessary steps to show our discontent” if it were returned to G4S.

Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said prisons privatisation had been a “costly failure”, and that the statement showed the government was doubling down on its commitment to privatisation “instead of learning the lessons and changing direction”.

Probation 'Bung' is £500 million!

Congratulations must go to Private Eye and especially reporter Solomon Hughes who continues to delve into the deliberately opaque world of probation privatisation in order to expose the omnishambolic mess it has become. Thanks to some serious journalistic legwork he has discovered that a staggering 2,714 staff have been shed by the privateers whilst at the same time benefiting from a government handout of £500 million. 

In a fascinating podcast linked to the article, Hughes explains that the story is generally 'under-reported' and the money 'not openly-declared'.     

Latest From Napo 182

Extracts from the latest Napo magazine:-

Napo NEC – first meeting of the new Napo year

Napo NEC met this week in the first meeting of the new Napo year post-AGM. New NEC reps were warmly welcomed and took great pleasure in ratifying 100s of new members who have joined since the last NEC meeting.

NEC reps play an important part in Napo and at this meeting they agreed the operating plan for the year as well as approving the budget to allow all of the vital work of the union to be done.

Reps were given an update on Napo’s Strategy for Growth and discussed ways that we are working to support members and reps to become more active in the Union including the launch of our new rep and activists training programme.

Delegates to the Women’s TUC conference and the TUC Black Workers conference were ratified, work will now be done to consider motions to those conferences. The motions to the 2018 AGM that were passed are now resolutions and these were allocated to the relevant Napo committees so that work can be undertaken through the year.

Some of our committees have vacancies, please contact your branch chair if you are interested in getting more involved in the work of the union.

Motions passed at the Family Court Section AGM were noted by NEC and a motion from South Yorkshire branch on member expenses was passed, committing us to review the amount paid for mileage to increase it from the very low rate set some years ago.

NEC were informed of the resignation of Vice Chair Denise Mason and thanked her for her hard work, wishing her well for the future. According to our constitution NEC has the power to appoint an acting Vice Chair to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term (until AGM 2019). David Raho was elected to this position and we welcome him to his new role.

CRC pay – issue being escalated to Probation Programme engagement

At this week’s meeting of the NEC it was made clear that there is considerable anger over the failure by CRC Providers and the MoJ to extend the terms of the NPS Pay award to CRC Staff. The NEC heard about the next steps in our efforts to establish pay parity as part of our ‘8 Good Reasons to Reunify Probation’ campaign. This will encourage all members in the CRC estate and NPS to raise their concerns directly with MP’s about the many problems that you are facing.

CRC Chief Executives will soon be receiving a letter from Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence following the debate at the NEC, where a clearer picture emerged of the pathetic responses by corporate management to our claims for fair treatment on pay for their staff.

This week also saw the unions and senior HMPPS management meet under the auspices of the Probation Programme Engagement Forum (TR mark 2). Work is under way to agree some terms of reference which will allow the unions to raise our concerns about the plans to repeat the selloff of Probation and the need to protect the terms and conditions of staff whilst maintaining our total opposition to the whole concept of marketisation.

In a clear sign that Napo will not forget the needs of our CRC members, we have insisted that a major discussion needs to take place about why CRC owners can claim that they cannot afford a decent pay rise for their staff whilst having received half a billion pounds in bailouts from the taxpayer. We will also continue with our argument that adjustments should be made to current CRC contracts to allow providers to match NPS pay rates, and that if this does not happen, then any new contracts that might emerge in 2020, if this disastrous plan is not halted, will simply be untenable.

Napo and our sister unions are pressing our case that CRC staff currently on (or thinking of) secondment to the NPS should be paid NPS rates of pay. Napo also pointed out that there are some staff who are currently undertaking vital work around Minimum Contact Specifications ordered by the MoJ on failing contractors, who must be paid the commensurate rate for the job.

New HMPPS senior Leadership Structure

It was formally announced today that there is a change to the structure right at the top of HMPPS. Two new Director General posts have been created, reporting to the CEO. These posts have been filled on an interim basis to allow for the structures to be developed but permanent selection will take place once the new CEO (the replacement for Michael Spurr) is appointed next year.

Amy Rees has been appointed as Director General for Probation and Phil Copple has been appointed as Director General for Prisons. Both job descriptions require a professional background in the relevant work area. Napo welcomes this development as an important move towards maintaining a distinct Probation identity within the department and look forward to meeting with Amy to discuss how Probation’s Professional identity can be both protected and developed.

Napo at Work in the South West 18

As usual, thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following:-

Napo SSW Branch report 26

November 18
Dear Napo members,

It has been a little while since my last branch report although thanks to Denice James for keeping us informed in the interim this summer.

There have been a lot of developments and ongoing issues with few resolutions. To help make this report easier to reference I have added a content list. I will keep the detail short as there is too much going on across the Working Links controlled territories. Recent dispute meetings in Cardiff saw revelations that Aurelius were due to meet the MOJ. Either keep floating the failing and broken Working Links or to pull the plug. I suspect the MOJ will have done a deal, whereby they pay to continue funding up to the new proposed contract periods. It is known that Aurelius have two debenture notices served on Working Links to ensure they are first in the scrum if and when Working Links finally fold.

1 MSC call centres and the return to 1-1.
2 Building Confidence - Probation consultation.
3 1% Pay contractual pay increase
4 Travel ban
5 Unpaid work
6 HMIP
7 The Certification Officer issues Peros v Napo

Minimum Service Contacts.

It has all started to unravel faster for CRC contractors since the Parliamentary Report about the national probation scandal which, we have all endured to date. From that we saw the recent directions and contract variations to all CRCs to return to some meaningful work in the restoration of one to one working. Already there are talks nationally of the Working Links way to find a few loopholes in that new direction. That said, we understand these sorts of re negotiations are inevitable but at the short sides meeting NAPO are clear we want to see a return to proper offender focused working. SSW branch have made it clear that we support all we can to adapt current staffing and processes to ensure DDC at least achieve this. However, the unions are absolute that all terms and conditions will be protected and voluntary engagement to change staff roles will prevail from the flawed current call centre model.

NAPO SSW criticised this direction from the start and lodged the dispute that has run for 2 years or so. We have vindication for the SSW branch, steadfast rejection of the Working Links failing model. The Recent direction from MOJ is back to some form of case management that requires one to one working with the person. This is long overdue and a real smack to the dissolution of years of expertise being dumped by private interest.

In turn talks have opened up for the minimum service contacts (MSC). We are in agreement to support the process of expressions of interest as the first step to recruit staff properly to adapt, develop, or return to familiar ways of working with people than what we have seen under the so-called innovation of privatised working and their call centre coverall. The problems yet to be resolved will include staff locations, numbers of staff, the backlog of cases, immediate take up of new cases, and training - all compounded by an organisation that has shrunk to a fraction with too much work. No agreement to date on caseloads and weightings, yet they carry on regardless.

2 Building confidence probation consultation.

In September Napo SSW submitted a large contribution from the branch on the consultation questionnaire. The MOJ put out a number of questions, not all of which are relevant for a consultation period, then half way through changed the game by adding questions. It would have been smarter to extend the period too. In any case, I could not imagine anyone would be supporting the continued splitting of the service. Most people contributing to the survey will easily work out it is a ploy. It may be to provide the MOJ with evidence to undermine the PAC report.

The full submission by the branch has been circulated and we wait to see what affect if any there might be. It was clear the plan was to influence the new contract not to stop the same errors. The current decline across all standards is breath-taking.

Sadly, though this has a link to the NPS Pay deal. Running through the argument for NEVER paying equal rates for staff in CRCs or parity is this little gem from the PAC report.

PAC

107. Section 4 of the Offender Management Act 2007 provides that “the giving of assistance to any court in determining the appropriate sentence to pass, or making any other decision, in respect of a person charged with or convicted of an offence” is reserved to “a probation trust or other public body”.189 In practice this means that only the National Probation Service, and not Community Rehabilitation Companies, can submit pre-sentence reports (see footnote for definition) and provide advice to the courts.190 The NPS has a dedicated team of report writers servicing the courts.191

This disconnect from the officers of the court argument actually removes many of the cornerstone arguments that used to be part of the pay structure ownership.

When we see the new contracts, I doubt it will build any confidence anywhere after the last 4 years of the spiral fast ride to the bottom. Reduction of this contract out two years early cannot come soon enough but the real fears and concerns we have include the probation senior management and the difficulties they have faced in the contract years of working under the sheer excessive ebullience of the privateers. (We do not hear much of that talking up now).

Some of the senior management’s pressures were being driven to dump all they knew of best practices and to make cuts wherever told, their concerns being ignored and quelled. I can assure members that Napo is aware of many factors that encourage us to support the senior management team, as we all start looking at what the new transition arrangements are going to become. It will impact on them as much as any staff and we cannot predict what we will all face post the consultation influences. Larger areas will likely mean more rationalisation. Meaning more profits potentials.

3 1% contractual pay increase

Members will know that we have been attending some meetings with the Working Links senior management and probation senior management teams. Back as far as March we heard pledges for the timely payment of the contractual 1% to be awarded to staff but to date this has still not arrived. At our meeting in Cardiff the lead for Justice stated that the Working Links board have met and decided to pay the entitlement some 7 months late. We had thought the threat of charging the interest on the belated money might have had a part to play. However, when the arrangement was communicated in writing to the union sides the management had taken out of the increase a small number of staff who had a cost of living rise based on pay scales earlier in the year. Members will realise what a PR disaster and penny-pinching approach to staff salaries this was and what a derisory attitude from the Working Links way. In all fairness a few heavy end criticisms and some pretty fast e mails exchanged saw Dawn Blower head of justices make a case to include those staff for the entitlement than just see the lowest paid end up on a time marking lost award. All credit to Dawn Blower we had not expected her immediate intervention to resolve the latest tension and yet she managed to ensure that money is now committed to our hard-pressed staff.

4 Travel Ban

The Working Links Way has seen them order a travel ban for all staff except under some circumstances. It is fairly clear to most people in this industry what damage this will do to working relations across the organisation. The need to grab back all the essential duties based on cost just illustrates what sort of financial constraints they are trying to deliver their targets under. Some of us do not actually believe they are genuinely trying to deliver anything at all other than to get the contract taken off them. We all know that MOJ will squeeze blood from a stone to keep this flagship fiasco afloat. It is no joke when we are all aware the Working Links financial director is consulted on every expense more than 20 quid! They have ordered a zero-white goods replacement and all products that may be ordered have to be none brand names and the cheapest option. There is a tactical delay in paying staff expenses as I have received several complaints and disability related payments for staff also. Any attempts to claw back running costs only hasten the decline of the services. What happened to all the spouting and pouting of private enterprise innovation managing millions of pounds of public monies. A touch too much of the boasting self importance. Their latest planned disaster area for the SW is the removal of phones and having Skype computer calls only. Avoiding the phone bills won’t improve the services.

5 Unpaid Work

The poorest treatment and declining standards to staff is the current treatment of unpaid workers in CRC contracts. The worst documents I have ever seen are those that deride remove and strip away any employment rights. As if it is okay to ask workers to sign away lawful statutory rights. The Working Links way has seen staff in role through agency or sessional to be facing real pay reduction, no proper annual leave agreement, and zero hours no commitment. There are no disciplinary investigation protections, no employment protections and no sickness protections. It is beyond anything we have seen to date and currently they claim the unions have agreed the position since TR. For members record we will be writing to the management shortly on the issues seeking some talks and clarification. To be clear none of the unions would have agreed any such zero hours contract and nor would we, ever. We will look to ensure all those staff being turned over what are their lawful protections and to ensure we access such rights for our members interests.

On top of this, there are record numbers of stand downs, lack of work places, and van spaces for participants. Offenders on orders have no chance of being completed within 12 months. Angry stories where participants turn up for work having travelled far, who have lost pay from their work to be there only to be sent home due to lack of space. Innovation and privatised interest clearly failing to deliver any comprehensive and equitable area wide services. The public sector managed all this and was so well organised and more efficient in the past. In Torquay the CP workshop has been closed when there has been no obvious explanation. In Dorset it is reported little weekend activity and no weekend CP in Exeter. Cornwall is doing well considering the staffing issues and the very real threat to ensuring the great works in that area continue.

6 HMIP

The inspectors have started their much-awaited inquiry and no doubt after the failings of the Working Links way and models dipterous report last August in BGSW, we will be in for some interesting reading. No doubt it will be raising eyebrows, tensions and anxieties in the Working Links way although we wonder do they care anymore. Did they do anything to learn from that experience?

The writing on the wall is a reduced contract period, a working model discredited, and a lack of staff and resources to deliver anything decent. As I write this report, indications are that it is unlikely the HMIP will be ordering commendations and celebratory medals and tie pins. Sadly though, I doubt there will be little holding them to account either. We look forward to March when that report is due to be published, if not sooner, and we urge all staff to continue the policy to tell the inspectors how it really is.

7 The Certification officer Peros V Napo

The substance of the case before the Certification Officer was basically straight forward. There were 4 complaints cited of breach of Napo Constitution and Disciplinary Rules by the Co-Chairs and one Vice Chair and the General Secretary. At the heart of the case was the question “are all members entitled to be dealt with in accordance with the Constitution - whatever the circumstances - or is it legitimate for Napo Officers and Officials to disregard the constitution?

The defence put forward by the Napo Barrister, supported by two lawyers, was that the issues of protecting confidentiality relating to Napo staff members meant the Constitution and Disciplinary Rules were not appropriate.

The Certification Officer was not persuaded by this argument and all 4 complaints of breach against Napo which, had been lodged by my representative, were upheld.

In her determination the Certification Officer declined to make an order against Napo making it clear her reason for not doing so was “Such an Order would, however, add nothing to the current position whereby all members are required to comply with the Constitution and Disciplinary Rules”. It is important to note that during the 12 months prior to the Hearing the Co-Chairs and Vice Chair failed to take up no less than 8 separate offers made by my representative to meet face to face on a “without prejudice” basis, in an attempt to resolve the matter. At least now, no other Napo member will ever have to experience the abuse of power to which I was subjected for over 12 months.

I thank warmly the fantastic role and skills of the lay representative acting for me, Dave Rogan. Ex Napo national rep with all the skills and intelligence to demonstrate in writing and argument everything that anyone on the NAPO officer’s team should have respected, understood, and acted properly on behalf of the membership they serve. The wonderful support of the whole Napo SSW branch executive. Great team, great people, those brave witness statements and our clever friends.

As Marx once said (Groucho, that) – ‘who would want to be in a club that would have someone like me in it.’ I have to say after the experience of that group on behalf of Napo I do have to think long and deep about that. However, and before then I am a real trade unionist and for me that comes first, whatever it takes.

Dino Peros

Napo SSW branch Chair.

All So Very Predictable

Preparing and writing pre sentence reports for court used to be an absolutely key part of a probation officers job, but it's been steadily down-graded. Here we have an article from the Probation Institute magazine on the subject and to be frank it makes for depressing reading because it was all so very predictable:-

How are pre-sentence reports working today?

The relationship between courts and probation holds the key to tackling the over-use of harmful short-term custody and reducing reoffending. In June 2018, Justice Secretary David Gauke MP called for short-term custody to be used only as “last resort.” But if we are to make this aspiration a reality, we need to ensure that judges and magistrates have confidence in probation’s delivery of community sentences as they represent the only realistic alternative in many cases. 

The Centre for Justice Innovation works to promote community sentences as an alternative to custody, and to understand the reason why their use has fallen by 24% since the start of the decade, exploring the way that presentence reports inform sentencers’ perceptions of probation. Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are a key point of contact between sentencers and probation. They provide judges and magistrates with expert assessments of the risks posed by an offender and the needs driving their offending, and recommend a sentence option which protects the public and supports rehabilitation.

By reviewing the available data and conducting interviews and workshops with practitioners, we have built up a complex picture: one of a system that has been buffeted by a range of policy decisions, but also one where creative and innovative thinking on the ground is finding workarounds to some of the structural challenges. 

In policy terms, clearly the headline issue is the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms which erected a divide between courts and the organisations responsible for delivering the majority of the community sentences they impose. But alongside this radical shift, we have seen an increased emphasis on timeliness in the management of courts. While this is, in many ways, a laudable goal it has had its own impact on the work of probation in courts. And all of this change is occurring at a time when austerity is forcing every part of the justice system to struggle to maintain basic services with limited resources. Taken together, these factors have formed the backdrop for a substantial shift in how pre-sentence reports are delivered. 

The changing delivery of presentence reports 

In our analysis of data on pre-sentence reports, we found two key trends: a significant reduction in the use of pre-sentence reports, and a change in the way they are delivered. The fall in the number of pre-sentence reports is stark. We have gone from 185,000 in 2012/13 to only 124,000 last year: a fall of almost a third over a period when the number of convictions has remained relatively stable. This fall has been seen in both magistrates and crown courts (though the drop in the former is a little steeper). It’s worth noting, however, that these statistics don’t count cases where previous PSRs are re-used, which may exaggerate the size of the change, but nonetheless it seems significant.

Perhaps more striking, though, is the change in the way that reports are delivered. The National Probation Service’s E3 model set ambitious targets for increasing the proportion of PSRs delivered orally, reducing the use of written fast delivery reports (FDRs) and, in particular, the most comprehensive Standard Delivery Reports (SDRs). In the three years since the targets were introduced the use of oral reports has doubled – going from 27% of all reports to 59%, while SDRs have fallen dramatically from 22% to only 3%. In magistrates’ courts, in particular, the SDR is almost unheard of, representing less than 1% of all PSRs.

In investigating the impact of these changes with probation officers, we found some interesting messages. Firstly, and perhaps most surprisingly, the majority of practitioners we spoke to felt that the oral format was working well for the majority of cases. New arrangements with partner agencies such as police and social work departments to obtain background information and the “safer sentencing” focus on the issues pertinent to sentencing decisions were seen as working well, and both officers and sentencers valued the opportunity to discuss the report in the courtroom. However some long-standing officers did note that the limited recording of oral advice was undermining the traditional value of the PSR as a starting point for sentence planning.

Probation officers were more concerned about the reduction in SDRs and, in particular, whether FDRs were being used inappropriately in some complex or traumatic cases. They noted that the guidance around when to use an SDR was restrictive and reported that they felt discouraged from using their professional discretion to go against that guidance. The key challenge was seen as workload: while FDRs and SDRs were often delivered in a similar number of calendar days, courts staff were expected to complete an SDR with only a half day of work. Probation officers told us that working on this volume of difficult cases was leading to burnout in members of court teams and potentially undermining the quality of advice.

The content of pre-sentence reports 

The probation officers we spoke to offered a mixed set of views on the content of PSRs since the reforms. In terms of offender assessments, the consensus was that the system was working well – or at least as well as it ever had, given long-standing complaints around the suite of assessment tools in use. However, some did stress the difficulties of establishing a rapport with an offender in the short interval allowed for an oral report. 

There was more concern about the quality of recommendations of community sentences. Many of the officers we spoke to expressed real concern that they lacked the information about CRC services that they needed to be able to make detailed and robust proposals which can command the confidence of sentencers. This picture varied significantly across different CRCs however: some CRCs had provided expanded rate cards that offered detailed service specifications, while in other areas courts staff had never seen any rate card at all. Some officers also noted that the design of the Rehabilitative Activity Requirement (RAR) placed further limits on how far they could be specific about the way that an offender would be supported on a community sentence – a concern shared by many sentencers. 

Sentencers, in particular, also noted a fall in the use of treatment requirements in community orders. This is backed up by the statistics: the proportion of orders containing drug rehabilitation requirements and mental health treatment requirements has fallen by half since their peaks earlier this decade. In part, this is likely to be caused by the well-documented cuts to treatment budgets6. However, some practitioners also suggested that treatment requirements were being displaced by the RAR, either because it requires less pre-sentence assessment, or (less cynically) because it allows a better integration between treatment and other forms of support.

How can we improve pre-sentence reports? 

Our research suggests that while some areas are working well, recent policy changes have had some negative impacts on the delivery of pre-sentence reports which may be undermining sentencers’ trust in community sentences. Probation officers and sentencers who took part in our research have highlighted particular issues around the assessments of complex cases, the production of detailed recommendations for community sentences and the use of treatment requirements which all seem to have suffered. 

However, participants also highlighted innovations which they saw as having the potential to address these issues. Some of these focus directly on improving sentencing such as the Embedded CRC model in use at Teeside magistrates court where a CRC Probation Service Officer (PSO) is housed with the NPS court team to provide information on CRC service provision. Another promising example is the five-site Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Pilot which seeks to increase the use of those requirements via new resources for on-the-day assessment and enhanced provision in the community. 

Other strategies focus on improving sentencers’ broader knowledge of community sentences such as in Lincolnshire where the NPS and CRC have collaborated to provide magistrates with high quality training including opportunities to meet with a range of probation staff including former service users. Participants were also supportive of models of problem-solving courts where sentencers conduct regular reviews of offenders under probation supervision, which they felt could reduce reoffending as well as increase sentencer trust.

However, while we believe that these innovations can improve pre-sentence reports, we must observe two caveats. Firstly, many of these will require some investment. While the cost is likely to be less than the savings we could achieve through meaningful reductions in custody, we cannot pretend that improvement can be delivered for free. Secondly, many of these ideas are work-arounds to problems created by TR’s break-up of probation trusts. Repairing the damage to sentencer trust will be much easier if we use the opportunity of the end of the current round of CRC contracts to heal the rift in our probation service. 

You can sign up to receive a free copy of the report when it’s released at http://justiceinnovation.org/mailing-list/

Stephen Whitehead 

Head of Evidence and Data Centre for Justice Innovation