Back to Political Football

It's interesting to note that just as Boris Johnson and the Tory Party decides to revert to form and call for longer prison sentences in order to try and win popularity, the soon-to-be resigning David Gauke uses his final speech to defiantly contradict such ill-informed politicking:-     

Smarter sentences, safer streets

Speech by Rt. Hon David Gauke MP, Secretary of State for Justice, calling for an evidence-led approach to sentencing to tackle reoffending.

It’s great to be here and can I thank Edelman for providing the venue and Social Market Foundation for hosting and thank you all for coming today. Gathered in this room there is a wealth of wisdom, expertise and experience of our justice system. You all share, as I do, a deep commitment and passion for reform to ensure justice in this country is delivered in an effective and fair way. I want to thank you for your dedication and for the valuable work you do and the different perspectives you bring.

In my last major speech on justice reform in February, I spoke about how we need to look beyond prison, move away from short custodial sentences and towards more effective alternatives in the community that better target the causes of offending. Since then, we’ve continued to build the evidence base for what works and lay the groundwork for delivering that, for example, with fundamental reform of the probation system.

Today, as we publish the latest set of research and statistics on reoffending, it seems timely to update you on the work we have been doing and to take stock of where we are and what, I believe, our direction of travel should be.

Rehabilitation as the best route to reducing reoffending

There is one stark fact facing us: three quarters of all crime that results in a caution or sentence happens because of reoffending. We must be fearless in dealing with this. Whilst long prison sentences will always be right for those who commit the most serious crimes, particularly of a violent or sexual nature, the fact is that the vast majority of all offenders will at some point be released. Most people who go to prison are there for a matter of months or weeks. Last year, for example, sentences of 12 months or less accounted for over two thirds of all immediate custodial sentences.

I believe the public therefore expect the justice system to focus on rehabilitation to reduce the risk of subsequent offending – and the likelihood of them becoming a victim of crime. That means prison and serving a sentence is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end, a means to make society safer. We need to punish for a purpose. Only by successfully rehabilitating offenders so they don’t commit a crime when they are released will we prevent more crime and more victims of crime.

The new evidence

When I became Justice Secretary in January 2018, I didn’t have a pre-conceived view on short sentences. But I wanted to see and understand the evidence. I wanted to know what the real cost of reoffending is to our society. Our new research today has found it is over £18 billion a year. I also wanted to know whether short prison sentences are actually the best way to keep us safe and prevent reoffending.

The latest evidence suggests that if all offenders who currently receive prison sentences of less than six months were given a community order instead, we estimate that there would be around 32,000 fewer proven reoffences a year. That’s an estimated 13% fewer proven reoffences for this cohort. That’s not just a statistic, that’s thousands fewer actual victims; and it’s safer streets and safer communities.

And I’ve wanted to understand why a particular group in society find themselves more likely to be moving in and out of prison again and again. Today’s research helps us to see past the offence to the person and the complex needs that contribute to keeping them trapped in a cycle of crime.

Over two thirds of those in prison for six months or less have a drug misuse problem. 72% lack the skills and motivation to get or hold down a job. 60% do not have a stable or suitable place to live. These are the problems we need to address to have a meaningful impact on reoffending rates. But when offenders only serve short custodial sentences of up to six months, the median time spent in prison is just 6 weeks. This just isn’t enough time for any effective rehabilitation to take place to successfully tackle these problems.

Ultimately, that short spell in prison doesn’t protect the public, doesn’t serve as much of a deterrent and exacerbates those already deep-rooted difficulties the individual faces. The research we have published today compared offenders who went to prison against a similar cohort who received a community order. For those with non-custodial sentences, we can do more to address these problems around addiction and housing and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Moving away from short prison sentences

So this latest research has further reinforced my view that moving away from prison sentences up to six months would deliver real and positive change, for the offenders to turn their lives around and for the safety of the public. There are different ways that you might achieve this: a bar to prevent the courts using them, or a less prescriptive presumption against their use. Or you could consider combining these options, applying a presumption to sentences of up to 12 months and with a bar for up to six months. I think there’s a strong case to explore this, given the evidence. But for any bar on short sentences, I’ve always said that there should be exceptions.

Our first responsibility must be to the victims of crime and we should not do anything to compromise their safety. For this reason, I’d argue a bar should not apply to offences of physical or sexual assault, so that in the right cases courts will be able to impose a short prison sentence. Another consideration is upholding the authority of the court. There are several offences which involve a disregard for court orders or its authority, where the possibility of a short sentence should, in my view, be retained.

For those repeat offenders who have been given community orders and who wilfully and persistently fail to comply with them, they need to know that they cannot get away with it with impunity. We must also ensure that we do not do anything that would put at risk the security of the wider public. We will need to consider, therefore, what other offences raise significant issues of public protection where a short prison sentence should continue to be an option. Given the acute problems with knife crime in cities like London, knife possession could be one such offence.

I believe this is a balanced, considered and, crucially, evidence-based approach to sentencing policy. It will help reduce crime and result, therefore, in fewer victims of crime. And I would hope that the next Prime Minister would continue with this reform agenda.

Probation reform

However, crucial to the success of any reform of sentencing is a strong probation system. Two months ago, I announced plans to reform our probation system, which will allow for much more robust community sentences and that will command the confidence of the courts.

We will be ending Community Rehabilitation Company contracts early and streamlining responsibilities for public, private and voluntary sector partners. That means a stronger role for the National Probation Service in managing all offenders, greater voluntary sector involvement in rehabilitation, and the private sector leading where it has specialist expertise and experience and where it can support innovation in rehabilitating offenders and organising Unpaid Work placements.

A strengthened probation system will significantly improve the services that have been shown to help turn offenders away from crime – be it housing support, help finding a job, or help to turn away from drink or drugs or treat mental health issues. This will build confidence that conditions set by the courts are enforced when people leave prison, and that for those who receive community sentences, tough enforcement is paired with targeted support and services that tackle the root causes behind the crime.

We have seen how partnership working at a local level can offer effective alternatives to custody. I’m keen to work with the judiciary and others in the criminal justice system to learn from, as well as pilot, alternatives to custody to inform our approach nationally.

At the same time, we are successfully rolling out GPS tagging to better monitor offenders and make sure offenders are adhering to the terms of their sentence or licence conditions. The findings from the pilot we ran found that most offenders felt wearing a tag would help them make positive changes in their lives. Building on the success of this we are also planning to roll out a variation of this service for children in the autumn to support children in their efforts to turn their lives around.

Technology, like GPS tagging, will help to give judges and magistrates more confidence to use community sentences in more cases. And I’m ambitious about what we can do in the future – using new technology and thinking innovatively about how we can both punish and rehabilitate in the community.

Through our probation reforms – and with some bold thinking about what community sentences look like in the future – we will see a successful shift away from ineffective short prison sentences towards more effective ways of rehabilitating offenders. I hope that when it comes to a Spending Review in due course that funding effective community sentences is made a priority given the costs it can save down the line.

Prison reform to rehabilitate

Finally, I do think it’s important to recognise that prison will always be right for some people. So, we need safe, secure and decent prisons. Instigated with huge determination and energy by Rory Stewart, the then Prisons Minister, the Ten Prisons Project, has focussed on improving standards in some of our most challenged prisons, alongside securing extra urgent funding and measures to tackle drugs and violence across the estate and significantly increasing the number of prison officers.

But we also need to create a real culture of rehabilitation and opportunity in prisons. For example, we are funding a pilot that will make befriending services available via in-cell telephony, with the aim of decreasing prisoner isolation, improving mental health and ultimately facilitating rehabilitation, in line with the findings of the Farmer review. We’ve also recently introduced a new approach to incentivising prisoners that helps them to make the right choices to get on the path to rehabilitation.

And I was proud to launch the Education and Employment Strategy last year putting education, skills and jobs at the heart of prison regimes. As well as helping those in prison prepare for work, I have also been keen to remove barriers and tackle prejudice that ex-offenders all too often face in trying to get a job.

As I announced this week, we intend to legislate so that for the first time, some sentences of more than four years will no longer have to be disclosed to employers after an appropriate period of time has passed. These are all important reforms of which I am very proud. They will, respectively and collectively, help make our prisons safer places where rehabilitation can take root and help provide opportunities for ex-offenders – simultaneously enriching our society and making us all safer.

Conclusion

The first duty of government is to keep its citizens safe. That includes tackling crime and reducing the number of victims of crime. Punishing criminal behaviour is a crucial part of doing that. Whether through prison, community sentences or fines, offenders must face justice. And justice works best when punishment and rehabilitation are balanced and the cycle of crime is broken. In doing this, we need to be guided by a clear assessment of the facts rather than saying what we think people want to hear. Today’s further research helps us to do that.

Let me be clear: I don’t want to see softer justice; I want to deliver smarter justice where offenders serve sentences that punish but also make them less likely to reoffend. I believe that the approach that I’ve set out today – indeed the approach I have set out in the last 18 months – is one that is most likely to be effective in reducing reoffending and therefore reducing crime.

I am aware that it is an approach that will not have universal support but I have taken great encouragement from the widespread support for an evidence-led, rehabilitative and humane agenda. It is my hope that in the years ahead – whoever has the privilege of being Justice Secretary – it is an approach that will be pursued with persistence and determination and courage. And that it will help deliver a safer and more civilised society.

David Gauke MP

Troubled Takeover

There seems to be yet more trouble in the South West according to the following from a reader:-

Dear members

Please read the following joint Union message:

Unions raise concerns over employers DBS assessment requests

Local Branch Officials from Napo/UNISON/GMB have been inundated with requests from members for advice about the recent request issued by KSS CRC/SEETEC. This seeks staff permission to undertake a new DBS assessment and provide authority for further checks to be carried out in relation to wide ranging and comprehensive personal data. These include: 

• Employment history
• Education
• Professional Qualifications
• Membership of professional organisations
• Character and professional references
• Asking staff to confirm that information provided can be subject to further verification
• Providing background information for new criminal and credit record checks
• Association with Credit Agencies or Government organisations
• Authority requests of staff to sign off permissions that include driving records checks and personal financial data.
• Confirmation that staff are content for this sensitive material to be shared across European partners and others organisations

Our concerns

Yet again, the employer has launched a sensitive communication without consultation with the unions. In the absence of a number of reassurances we remain to be convinced that some of these requests do not breach many of our members individual rights to privacy and the right to data security. The Unions have no further information other than the vague assurances in the letter to staff, but given the difficulties that we were alerted to at the time of KSS CRC taking the place of Working Links (where personal files were stacked in boxes in Middlesbrough), this is not a reference that can be relied upon.

The unions have had no consultation with the employer about why they are seeking this information which appears to go above and beyond what is actually necessary. Staff reading the list of intended inquiries and the scope for third party involvement have relayed their shock and disbelief at the level of invasive checking, including the need to produce passports and domestic bills as a form of identification.

We will be urgently raising the issue with the employer and until we receive a satisfactory explanation, we must remind members that they are under no obligation to provide this material afresh as it should already be in your established online data records. If this has been lost between employers then this is a serious issue.

The unions have had no assurances about where and how this information is to be revealed and remain doubtful that this request is compliant with the existing General Data Protection legislation.

The GDPR legislation sets out seven key principles:

• Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
• Purpose limitation.
• Data minimisation.
• Accuracy.
• Storage limitation.
• Integrity and confidentiality (security)
• Accountability

We also intend to ask the employer to explain why, when relevant record checks last up to 4 years for a standard DBS, they need to conduct this exercise. We will be writing to the employer to record our concerns and we will also be considering the potential for a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office on behalf of the staff affected.

We will also remind the employer of the additional costs involved in this process especially as the employer has claimed that it does not have the resources to improve upon their recently imposed pay award.

The unions will be issuing further information to members at the earliest opportunity.

Meanwhile, and as a self-protection measure, the unions recommend that all members withhold their permission for these checks to be carried out until further clarity has been provided.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary, Napo
Siobhan Brown/Simon Dunn/Debbie Monksfield, Regional Organisers, UNISON
Helen Coley, Regional Officer, GMB/SCOOP

Problem with Command and Control

This from Danny Shaw at the BBC highlights yet again the problems we have with the 'command and control' ethos at the MoJ running probation. Many seasoned practitioners will recall the days when work with sex offenders was 'tailored' to an individual and not a rigidly applied 'accredited' programme that was subsequently discredited:-   

MoJ used failed sex offender treatment 'unlawfully'

The Ministry of Justice acted "unlawfully" in allowing the Sex Offender Treatment Programme to continue for five years - despite initial research which suggested it wasn't working, a government analyst has said. 

Kathryn Hopkins said she presented research in 2012 which showed the SOTP made sex offenders more harmful, but the programme wasn't halted until 2017. Speaking to BBC News after bringing legal action in an employment tribunal, she estimated around 180 more crimes will be committed by sex offenders who were treated during the five years - compared with those who weren't.

The MoJ said "at no point" did it try to avoid publishing the findings of the research. The department commissioned Ms Hopkins, who was then a senior researcher in its analytics unit, to study the effects of the SOTP, which had been used in various formats since 1991. The scheme involved group sessions and cognitive behavioural therapy and was designed to challenge the behaviour of male sex offenders with psychological techniques to change their thinking.

Ms Hopkins said her initial results suggested prisoners who took part in the scheme were more likely to reoffend than those who did not. When the SOTP was eventually abandoned in 2017, the MoJ published a research report acknowledging that it was not working.

"The final report confirmed what the claimant {Ms Hopkins} had been saying all along, i.e. that there was a higher rate of reoffending by prisoners who had undertaken the SOTP," Employment Tribunal Judge Tamara Lewis declared. "We can understand the claimant's frustration that it took five years to publish a report on such an important matter of public policy," she said.

Ms Hopkins said the MoJ had "allowed people to continue attending the course" whilst knowing "it could be harmful". She indicated that victims and convicted perpetrators of sex attacks, who were told to complete SOTP, could sue the government if the crimes would otherwise not have taken place.

The MoJ explained the five-year gap between the original findings and the final report by saying that it had to check and revise the research that had been conducted. "Both internal and external experts who reviewed Ms Hopkins' research judged that it was not of sufficient quality and that the methodology needed to be changed to remove the risk of bias and inaccurate results," a spokesperson said. After the study confirmed the findings, the MoJ said it replaced the SOTP with two new programmes, Horizon and Kaizen.

Ms Hopkins suggested that, over an eight-year follow-up period, at least 178 more sexual offences would be committed by prisoners who'd been treated between 2012 and 2017 than by those who were not. The figure is likely to be an under-estimate, she said, because it did not take account of the increasing number of sex offenders beginning the SOTP in those five years compared with earlier years.

According to MoJ statistics, 2,861 prisoners started the scheme. The total also did not include sex offences that will not come to the attention of police, breaches of court orders and non-sexual offending.

The Employment Tribunal panel found that Ms Hopkins, who now works for HMRC, had been unfairly marked down in a performance review in 2014 because she'd raised concerns about the SOTP. She was given a 'must improve' rating which Judge Lewis said "caused her enormous distress" and prompted her to start a grievance procedure.

The judge said: "It appears to us to be disproportionate and therefore very surprising that the claimant was marked 'must improve'." However, the claim failed on a technicality because Ms Hopkins had waited too long to bring proceedings. She said it was important to bring the case to ensure that other government research isn't "sidelined" or "covered-up", as she had alleged hers was.

She said: "It questions the integrity of those analysts' work if they're not supported to be independent and there's a possibility that government researchers will be perceived as not being independent from now on," she said.

The Folly of Berwyn

Peter Clarke might try and highlight some positives, but the still-half-empty HMP Berwyn has been a disaster, and the MoJ want to build more:- 

HMP Berwyn - a good start for a new prison but some important weaknesses

HMP Berwyn, a large, two-year-old prison near Wrexham, was found in its first inspection to be generally ordered, with good living conditions, but with some key weaknesses.

Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, said that opening a new prison was a big challenge. “The prison opened with a very clear rehabilitative vision which has faced resistance at times. The leadership team are still working hard to find and maintain the right balance between rehabilitation and security, freedom and control, and sanctions and reward.

“Some mistakes have been made and we identify some important weaknesses, but we also acknowledge the great effort that has been made to give this prison a good start. The prison is generally ordered and settled, and… we found Berwyn to be a reasonably respectful place.” There was more to do, though, in the areas of safety, purposeful activity and rehabilitation and release planning.

Though Berwyn is a Welsh prison, about 75% of those held in March 2019 were from England. Around 23% of prisoners felt unsafe at the time of the inspection, a figure comparable with other training prisons. Assaults on prisoners were lower than in similar prisons, but the rate of assaults on staff was higher. There were signs, though, that both were gradually reducing.

Some work was being done to reduce violence but “delivery often lacked drive and needed to be implemented more effectively.” Inspectors found 25 self-isolating prisoners who were completely unsupported. Use of force by staff was higher than in similar prisons and incidents usually involved the full application of restraints. However, oversight was satisfactory.

Drugs had been too readily available, but actions by the prison to reduce drugs supply seemed to have had some impact, and the positive drug testing rate had reduced to 21.49%. This was, however, still too high and supply reduction initiatives required greater coordination and drive. Nearly half of prisoners said it was easy to get drugs and almost one in four said they had developed a drug problem while at the prison.

There had been no self-inflicted deaths since the prison opened and self-harm was comparatively low, but those at risk who inspectors spoke to did not feel well cared for.

Most staff at Berwyn were inexperienced and, though they were doing their best and contributing to a relaxed and positive atmosphere, many prisoners felt frustrated by staff inconsistency and uncertainty. Some poor behaviour went unchallenged.

The quality of accommodation and the general environment were very good, with in-cell showers, telephones and access to amenities. Mr Clarke said: “The prison had been successful in its aim to make such a large prison feel small. There was a real sense of community in most of the wings.”

Employed prisoners had reasonable time out of cell, though it was much worse for those without employment, who had about two and a half hours a day. Inspectors found 28% of prisoners locked up during the working day, “which for a new training prison was very disappointing.”

One of the greatest challenges facing the prison was the lack of activity places. Mr Clarke said: “It is difficult to understand how and why the procurement of work and training places for a new prison could be so delayed. Facing a rising population and too few activity places, prison managers had created a range of activities and there were sufficient places for the current population, but some were of inadequate quality and lacked challenge. Even those that were available were not fully used. Many prisoners were unemployed or failed to attend, and staff did too little to support a sound work ethic.” Those attending education or vocational training, however, generally received excellent teaching, made useful progress and achieved well.

The prison was struggling to develop its approach to offender management and resettlement. The make-up of the population was not as had been originally envisaged. Many prisoners were serving long sentences and presented a high risk of harm. Too many prisoners did not have an up-to-date assessment of risk.

Offender management caseloads were too high and case management was inconsistent and reactive. Public protection measures were similarly weak and the prison lacked sufficient offending behaviour interventions to meet the needs of the population. Work to resettle prisoners was, however, better.

Overall, Mr Clarke said:

“We met many managers and staff who were working hard to make a success of this new prison. Senior managers described themselves as ‘being on a journey’ and we saw lots of work, many policies and numerous plans. What was needed was better oversight, better coordination and more sustained delivery. The staff seemed to us to be a strength of the prison, but they needed support in delivering the basics consistently. We thought the prison had made a good start. We were impressed by the energy and optimism we observed and there was clearly the potential to move on rapidly.”

Notes to editors

A copy of the full report, published on 11 July 2019, can be found here.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons is an independent inspectorate, inspecting places of detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public.

In 2014, permission was granted for a prison to be built in Wrexham, and Berwyn opened on 27 February 2017. Built on a former Firestone Tyre site, Berwyn (when full) is the largest prison in England and Wales and the second largest in Europe. This report records HMIP’s first inspection of HMP Berwyn. It is the first prison to open under the management of the public sector for several years. Designated a category C training prison, the establishment held 1,273 prisoners at the time of the inspection. They were held in three residential units, which in turn were subdivided into a total of eight communities. In time the prison will be able to hold 2,106 prisoners, although we were told that currently numbers are capped to allow for the build-up of staff as well as additional activity for prisoners.

Notable features from this inspection: only a quarter of the population were Welsh; the prison’s capacity was 2,106 prisoners but it held 1,273; just over three-quarters of the population were serving sentences of four years or more; almost half of prisoners said drugs were easily available; three-quarters of officers had been in service for less than two years and about a third for less than a year; all cells had a shower, telephone and laptop computer; levels of self-harm were low for the type of prison.

This unannounced inspection took place between 4 and 14 March 2019.

--oo00oo--

Frances Crook of the Howard League can barely contain her anger:-

Berwyn prison: are we tolerating the intolerable?

I am still very angry about Berwyn prison. I was furious when it was proposed, furious when it was built and now it’s two years since it opened and I’m furious because I have been proved right.

Berwyn prison is built on a former industrial estate in Wrexham, an area that desperately needs infrastructure and employment investment. Instead, it got a prison costing some £250 million that has been beset with problems and has drained local health and police resources.

Berwyn was intended to hold over 2,000 adult men on remand and on short sentences. This was obviously a nonsense as Wrexham is not near to the courts it would have served. So instead its purpose was changed and now it is ostensibly a Category C training prison and holds men serving longer sentences, mostly two to ten years.

Immediately there is a problem. The design did not include sufficient activity spaces for all the men as it was envisaged they would only be in the prison for short periods. Now that men are living in the prison for years, a third of them are locked up almost all day because there are not enough facilities for them to work or do education.

The prison is shoddy. Prisons tend to be used for decades, sometimes centuries. So as well as wasting all that capital money, the taxpayer is ploughing tens of millions into the prison for generations, and the cost of maintenance will increase as the building was simply not built to a standard to last that long.

Berwyn contravenes international standards. The United Nations Mandela Rules, Rule 12 says “Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself or herself.” And the rules go on to stipulate that there should be natural light and proper ventilation. None of this applies in Berwyn. Men are forced to share cells and the toilet is inside the cell. So in modern prison, men have to defecate in front of a cell mate, with little ventilation. Revolting.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons has now published Berwyn’s first inspection report, which is disappointing because it seems we now tolerate the intolerable. The tenor of the report is that it made “a good start” whilst acknowledging that there are some important weaknesses. I disagree. The prison should never have been built, the design is flawed, and it is failing to get men busy or to protect the public. As many prisons are now in a deplorable state, the bar is set so low that any prison not totally awash with drugs and violence is apparently making a “good start”, despite a high use of violence by staff to control prisoners, nearly a third of men locked up all day (that’s nearly 400 men) and a quarter saying they feel unsafe.

There is reluctant recognition that Berwyn is not fit for purpose as two years since it opened it is still only half full. If it ever holds 2,000 men it will be a disaster. It is failing today – failing victims, failing prisoners, failing the local community in North Wales and failing the taxpayer. Yet the government plans to build even more Berwyns.

Frances Crook

Napo at Work in the South West 27

As usual, thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following. (I have not included the exchange of correspondence between the unions and Seetec).

Dear Members

Please read the attached documents from Napo GS and sister unions. We remain in dispute with Seetec over pay amongst other things. While we seek a fairer pay award we have had nothing that goes anywhere near a reasonable offer let alone fair. Instead Seetec continue to rewrite their own account of the truth. Their derisory, pathetic minimal contractual pay imposition on our members is just insulting when they won't attend properly to fair and assessed weighted workloads.

While we all look forwards to the new 80% staffing and workloads return to Public Services where pay is agreed by members and reflects a better pay value of staff, although still short of what Probation staff are worth. We can see now despite early day flannel in the Seetec CRC your worth less. They continue to expect more and their duplicitous campaign to damage our STAP protected policies. Your terms will be worsened should you be unfortunate enough to remain in a future CRC when and if new arrangements are brokered into place. Let's hope not then but for now you have the opportunity to register the dissent we hear from members daily in the anger staff feel at the way Seetec operate their attempts to force another major series of ill prepared changes whilst still ignoring the urgency of the recent HMIP report. This is an indicative ballot and a good response in number is important to register your continued unhappiness at the way the Seetec group continue the same tactics of their failed aggressive predecessors Working Links. Read carefully the good efforts of the NAPO Head Office to work positively with Seetec only to be aware of their real intentions of further and unreasonable delay tactic. 

Finally let you, the hard pressed staff down with the most miserly CRC pay award and differential between East and West that is incredible to try and front up. They have no sense of acting properly to pay well and equitably and this cannot be allowed to continue. Vote now, vote early when the survey comes to your e mail and let's ensure a full response so the Unions leaderships have a measure on what direction to push our action while unfairness on pay continues.

Dino Peros 

Napo SSW Branch Chair.

--oo00oo--

SEETEC KSS CRC FAIL TO ENGAGE ON PAY – UNIONS LAUNCH INDICATIVE BALLOTS

In this special bulletin 

• Employer fails to supply relevant data and rejects further pay talks
• Shoddy pay award imposed on staff
• Staff told they should be grateful at ‘the further (non-pay related) investment’ by SEETEC
• All CRC members to be asked how we should now proceed

Why we are in dispute

Last month we advised members that the probation unions had formally notified KSS CRC/ SEETEC that we were now in dispute with the employer on Pay following their failure to comply with their obligation to supply data that would inform meaningful negotiations.

Despite a realistically structured pay claim and a detailed presentation to KSS/SEETEC senior management, it became clear that there was no real intention (or it seems any authority) to engage properly with the unions. Moreover, the information supplied (when it eventually arrived), was not only inadequate but failed to explain the reason why the employer is intent on maintaining a two-tier workforce with pay disparity between the east and west of their extended workforce. We then asked the employer to join us in common cause to make a case for additional funding from the MoJ/HMPPS and to meet with us again to see if any progress could be made towards improving their pay offer. The employer has rejected both of these requests.

All of the foregoing is in stark contrast to the promises from the employer to constructively engage with trade unions when they stepped in to replace the failed Working Links CRC. Some things do not change it seems.

Hard-pressed staff deserve a decent pay rise!

The astonishing revelation back in early 2018 that Working Links/Aurelius were paid £4.2 million by the MoJ in that financial year (part of a four year package reportedly worth £277 million to shore up the 21 CRCs in England and Wales) caused understandable anger among many members who had not seen a decent pay rise for some years. Just how much of this was pocketed by directors and shareholders is anyone’s guess.

It was quite reasonable for members to expect that once SEETEC had moved in to replace the shambolic Working Links regime there would be room in the new funding arrangements between SEETEC and the MoJ to offer staff a decent pay rise, especially as rates of pay in the NPS are substantially higher. Instead, their new employers have treated you with gross disrespect.

The imposition of a two-year award for staff working in the areas originally covered by KSS CRC has compounded matters and that award still falls short of the joint pay claim. This is why all CRC members are encouraged to take part in this important consultative exercise. This is an opportunity for members to demonstrate solidarity with each other across all of the regions now covered by the employer.

Appended to this bulletin are copies of correspondence between the unions and employer illustrating our efforts to negotiate and their response. We intend asking some serious questions in Parliament about the current funding structure that has been put in place and why SEETEC have obviously failed to undertake appropriate due diligence prior to replacing Working Links.

We want meaningful dialogue and transparency

We need to make it clear to all our members that the unions would rather not be in this dispute. We want to engage in dialogue where the employer shows a willingness to explore every avenue to pay staff what they deserve. Unfortunately, this will require a change in approach from the SEETEC board, who seem to think (as did the former disgraceful employer), that trade union members are an irrelevance. Just like their predecessors, they fail to understand that staff know more about what is actually needed to improve the catastrophic state of operations that they inherited. If they want your support in this regard then they ought to get back around the table and find the means to pay up now!

Indicative ballot - your chance to direct the dispute 

We need to get a better understanding from our loyal members as to what they think about the current situation and your willingness if necessary, to move to the next stage of this unnecessary dispute. Napo, UNISON and GMB are now launching a series of consultative ballots for our members across the whole of the KSS CRC. Please look out for more news about the balloting process and please show this bulletin to colleagues who may not be in a trade union and encourage them to sign up with the union of their choice and join the campaign for fair pay! 

We are asking all union members to make a clear statement in this ballot by voting ‘Yes’ to the relevant questions.

Ian Lawrence, Sarah Friday, Tania Bassett. Napo

Siobhan Brown, Debbie Monksfield, UNISON
Helen Coley. GMB

Some Green Shoots

This caught my eye and serves to remind me that with adequate staffing, insightful governance and the freedom and willingness to innovate, good things can happen and in some surprising places:-

Organic gardening helps inmates kick drug addiction

Physically and mentally, growing plants without chemicals has a transformative effect. Anyone who has spent time gardening knows the restorative effect it can have. There is something about dirt on one's hands, the pulling of weeds, and the creation of something beautiful and alive that draws people back, year after year.

So it's no wonder that gardening is being used to rehabilitate prison inmates battling drug addiction. One particular location, at HMP Rye Hill in England, has seen its Mandatory Drug Test failure rate go from 30 percent on average to zero in one year since implementing an organic gardening program. Food Tank reports on the program's stellar success, saying the HMP's horticultural program has

"improved self-esteem and self-control, better health and wellbeing, a shared community and improved communication among inmates who work toward a common goal, and behaviour changes inside and outside the prison."

There are numerous reasons for this, as outlined in a report commissioned by HMP. Gardening creates a space that is beautiful, peaceful, and conducive to reflection. It's a place where the inmates work at their own pace, with minimal presence of guards.

"Participants repeatedly write [in their diaries] about the pleasure, tranquillity and sense of freedom they feel as a result of working outdoors. Participants frequently reported feeling better for being outside and in touch with nature (even during the winter months)."

The physical activity involved in gardening leads to improved sleeping patterns, increased energy, and an overall sense of wellbeing, which translates to healthier lifestyle habits, such as quitting smoking and going to the gym more often. And as individuals struggling to free themselves from chemical dependencies, they value the philosophy behind organic cultivation.

The gardens give the inmates something to be proud of and to talk about when they meet family members. It builds a sense community within the inmates themselves, as all must work together for a common goal. Researchers reported seeing prisoners

"supporting each other in a myriad of ways, including supporting with specific tasks in the garden, making each other beverages, supporting with literacy and numeracy skills and also recognising when someone on the programme was having a difficult day offering emotional support."

HMP's sounds like a wonderful program that could be a model for many other prisons, mental health institutions, hospitals, schools, and other educational facilities around the world. It's living proof that we should never underestimate the power of the earth to heal, ground, and recalibrate us as humans.

--oo00oo--

About Rye Hill

HMP Rye Hill is situated in the village of Willougby, near Rugby, in Warwickshire. A PFI prison which opened in 2001, it is a category “B” training prison, acting as a national resource for sentenced male adults who have been convicted of a current or previous sex offence(s). The capacity of the prison is 625.

The sentence requirement for HMP Rye Hill is for prisoners who have been sentenced to over four years and have at least 12 months left to serve. No more than 15% of the population must be in denial of their offence. The philosophy of our prisons is to rehabilitate offenders and equip them to re-integrate into mainstream society on release. We seek to normalise prison conditions as far as possible and reflect life in the outside community. Our aim is to create an environment in which staff and prisoners feel safe, and causes of prison stress are minimised.

Central to our philosophy is the relationship between staff and prisoners. Our training and operational practices emphasise the need to treat prisoners with dignity and respect. G4S staff build positive and supportive relationships with prisoners in their care. We create a constructive regime through provision of suitable education and work programmes. We actively encourage prisoners to address the causes of their offending. This is achieved by the provision of a range of Offending Behaviour Programmes, active sentence planning procedures and by providing appropriate employment and training opportunities.

We provide an environment which is modelled on the terms, conditions, practices and standards both offered and expected by industrial employers. We give prisoners real work experience which reflects the ethics required in business. G4S provides opportunities for prisoners to gain national vocational qualifications that assist prisoners to find work on their release.

--oo00oo--

This from a G4S press statement 23rd October 2018:-

WHERE DEBATING MATTERS: BEYOND BARS AT HMP RYE HILL

Is space exploration a £15 billion benefit to the economy or a luxurious waste of time? This is just one of the topics that prisoners at HMP Rye Hill tackled at the inaugural Debating Matters ‘Beyond Bars’ competition. Debating Matters—described as the UK’s toughest debating competition—made its debut at HMP Rye Hill last month. In front of an audience of their fellow prisoners, the ‘Beyond Bars’ competition celebrates and rewards participants for constructive and well-thought out arguments, and the enthusiasm was palpable.

“When I started, I thought space exploration was great,” said Nick, a prisoner at HMP Rye Hill and participant in the competition. “But then I did some research and changed my opinion; now I think it is a waste of time and money. I know I can change your mind too.”

What is Debating Matters?

Debating Matters ‘Beyond Bars’ is an innovative and challenging debate competition aimed at engaging prisoners in rigorous and well researched public debate. It was launched by The Academy of Ideas in 2016 and aims to unlock the potential of inmates by promoting research, listening and communication skills, and encourages them to think about the world around them. It also promotes teamwork and “gives us (prisoners) the opportunity to see other people’s views,” according to Jason, another Debating Matters participant at Rye Hill. “It is proactive offender management,” he said. “It can help solve prison officer issues like violence because it helps us communicate in a more measured and useful way.”

Competition time

The competition followed a standard debating setup: teams of two face off on opposing sides of a statement—one in agreement and one against—where the winner is judged by whomever makes the most compelling argument. The teams at Rye Hill were put through their paces, facing tough subject matters including; accepting the risks of contact sports, filtering out fake news on social media and whether space exploration is a waste of time and money. The best two teams went through to the final to debate whether “monuments to controversial historical figures should remain.”

After the teams made their opening statements, the topics were opened to the audience—and it was obvious that they were prepared. During the debate, “space exploration is a waste of time and money,” the audience questioned everything from the impact that scaling back would have on employment, international relations and scientific research to whether the money saved from space exploration would be redirected to fund global issues, and the role of private companies in the future of space exploration.

“Debating Matters emphasises the importance of taking ideas seriously and presents a unique opportunity for prisoners to engage in creative problem-solving,” said Pete Small, Director of HMP Rye Hill. “It was great to see everyone get involved. I was impressed by all of the teams that participated in the competition; their dedication and enthusiasm just goes to show how important these kinds of events are.”

Three guest judges from all walks of life and professional backgrounds—including a senior lecturer, a writer and retired health professional—scrutinized and cross-examined the arguments. They praised the quality of the debates, the breadth and depth of knowledge, and teamwork that was displayed throughout the competition.

The grand final was a culmination of expectation and excitement, as the teams energetically commanded the debate; should we remove historical monuments because they are a physical rallying point for protests, or is it acceptable to effectively wipe out periods of history? Ultimately, the winners were crowned thanks to their “rigorous, ingenious and persuasive” argumentation.

Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas, praised the quality and standard of the debates throughout the day. “It is the start of something,” she said. Jason and Nick agreed; they had already pitched several new topics for future debates to Pete Small earlier in the afternoon!

--oo00oo--

This from the Independent in December 2015:-

Rye Hill: Inside the prison changing the landscape for serious sex offenders

Woodwork and painting, lettuce growing and landscape gardening. These are not the first things that spring to mind when imagining life inside a sex offenders’ jail, yet you’ll find them at HMP Rye Hill. Run by the private security firm G4S, the Category B training prison, just outside Rugby, was transformed 18 months ago from a mixed-population prison to one solely for serious sex offenders.

More than 90 per cent of the 623 inmates are serving sentences of at least 10 years. And around 65 per cent are guilty of sex offences against children. Its population is set to rise, given that sex offenders are the fastest-growing part of the British prison population. With space for just two more inmates as things stand, a planning application has been made to extend Rye Hill enabling it to cater for more than 1,000 inmates.

The Independent was given a guided tour the day before government inspectors publish a report on Rye Hill after the first unannounced inspection since its transformation in summer 2014.

Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, said it was “a positive inspection” and that Rye Hill had “some real strengths”, such as its activities centre, its gardening projects and its offender management. One area for improvement was health care. More than 100 prisoners are aged 60 or older – the oldest is 86 – and some are now suffering from dementia, diabetes or other age-related illnesses. Six prisoners are terminally ill.

Given the nature of their offences (perhaps it’s of little surprise that 60 per cent of prisoners receive no visits from family or friends), many people will question whether they deserve improved conditions. Yet that is not the view of staff here, led by Richard Stedman – who at 35 is the UK’s youngest governor.

“We are fundamentally about reducing risk,” he says, a theme he returns to throughout our tour. “With a much older prisoner profile, you see a much more passive population, physically, but it is a population who are much more sophisticated and much more able to manipulate to condition and groom other prisoners.

“They will also try their best to manipulate staff. So we have had to completely rethink the way we train and encourage our staff to engage with prisoners, because that literally changed overnight [with the prison’s transformation].

The inspectors said they were concerned the prison was not sufficiently alert to the risk of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual grooming, something Mr Stedman acknowledges.

“When someone comes out of a cell with a black eye, it’s very obvious that someone has been assaulted. [Grooming] is a much more hidden risk and those behaviours and issues become visible over weeks, months and years, so that comes back to the relationship that staff have with the prisoners – and they are much more able to know what signs to look for.”

Inside the activities centre, older inmates and those with mental health issues are finishing their three-hour morning session. “Some people just come down here for the social aspect,” says Clare Witt, head of activities, “because otherwise retired prisoners would just be locked in their cells all the time. We have just eight people who are retired and don’t attend any work or education and that’s their choice. It’s not enforced.”

The landscape garden, where higher-risk prisoners on the substance-misuse residential unit spend up to six hours a day, has been built from scratch by the prisoners themselves – taking them away from any problems they might have on their wing. Mr Stedman says: “The value and impact that the garden makes on some of our most complex prisoners is an absolutely critical element of what we do.”

About a third of the inmates are still in denial over their crimes, which is one of the reasons only 59 have completed Rye Hill’s sex offenders’ treatment programme this year. The aim next year is to have 96 complete it. Louise Sharpe, the programme’s clinical lead, said the one-year course is aimed at inmates with a higher intellect and looks at what has made someone offend. “We would look at their sexual interests, relationships problems, how they feel about themselves and their lifestyle.”

Prisoners often arrive at Rye Hill with no trust in authority and no trust in what staff are trying to do. Re-engaging and rehabilitation is a slow process but time is not an issue – few people ever leave prison. They either die here at Rye Hill or move to a Category C jail.

Mr Stedman says: “What we do in prison isn’t just about locking people up and security. You have to combine that element with the work that is about change and creating that environment where people can change. And that doesn’t happen overnight.”

Latest From Napo 191

This circulated to members from Napo news:- 

Napo seeks new Transfer Agreement – Wales is the immediate priority

Napo and the Probation unions have commenced negotiations with HMPPS on the Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement. This will facilitate the movement of staff and offender management work from the CRCs into the NPS by April 2021. Ian Lawrence General Secretary reports…

I have had the privilege of attending six Napo Branch AGMs since the announcement of the Government’s Probation U-turn by David Gauke on 16 May. This will result in 80% of probation work moving into public ownership and control by April 2021. It’s become very clear that while members are delighted at this news there is widespread recognition that the unions have a major piece of work on our hands as we start to address the myriad of issues that have surfaced following this major change in direction.

In last week’s article and HQ blog post I explained a few of Napo’s intended ‘Red Lines’ that we are taking forward into the negotiations as endorsed by the National Executive Committee, and these have been well received by the members who have turned out in such impressive numbers at recent Branch meetings.

The need to get this right

I can still picture the rousing reception at last year’s Napo Annual General Meeting in Southport to the rallying call that: ‘”f what is planned for Probation in Wales is good for Wales, then it’s good for England too.”

Little did we know then that the ground would shift so dramatically in our campaign to see all of Probation work return to where it belongs, and notwithstanding that we are still short of total victory, we have to deal with the very pressing situation in front of us. The immediate challenge is to ensure that the arrangements for transferring Offender Management work, and the staff that will be required to undertake it, from the Wales region of the KSS CRC by December is managed effectively.

So far, we have had a meeting with HMPPS/MoJ senior leaders, the national unions and reps from Wales. These initial exchanges helped everyone involved to understand the specific requirements of the OM Wales project. Further meetings are taking place locally between the unions and NPS and CRC senior leaders to identify the logistics and any particular governance issues in relation to Wales that all of this will need.

Priorities

The first priority in the national negotiations is to establish which staff will be ‘in scope’ to move to the NPS with their work and the terms of the transfer, such as pay, terms and conditions which is where our red lines will be tested. Then we will need to establish how we deal with a number of scenarios namely: staff who do not want to transfer; staff who do but have been engaged on interventions and programmes ever since TR; staff who want to carry on with that vitally important work or, who may have particular domestic circumstances or particular protected characteristics. As you would expect, I have been asked whether all of this points to a likely redundancy bonanza, but my straight answer at members meetings is don’t put yours or anyone else’s shirts on that prospect. Napo’s first priorities are no detriment, harmonisation of pay for all probation staff NPS or CRC, continuity of service, facilities time for our reps to cross CRC and NPS county lines and job security for everyone.

Facts are important – get them from Napo

I have been around long enough in this business to appreciate that all sorts of messages from different sources will be banded around in what is undoubtedly another period of uncertainty. It’s frustrating and people want answers; but remember who it was who pulled the service apart under TR and the task we face in picking up the pieces. Napo will ensure that we issue clear communications to our members at every opportunity, and that when it comes to the selection process for determining who is in scope or not to go with OM work, I have made our policy very clear. Essentially, we have said that the CRC operators should have an advisory role through their contractors and fulfil their existing responsibilities to their current workforce. Many members are of the view that they don’t want their long-term futures determined by employers whose remaining tenure is short-term.

Many of our members still have bitter memories of the ‘Cherry picking’ by the employers four years ago, and that is why your leadership group are doing all we can to avoid a repeat of that (Grayling inspired) farce.

Ian Lawrence
Napo General Secretary

Poor Decision Making at MoJ

Continuing with the theme of why the MoJ should not be running the probation service, here we have a statement from Circles following the decision to reduce funding and a subsequent Sky News documentary:-

Why this mustn’t be the end of the line for Circles: what the recent Sky News Documentary revealed and why it matters

Adele Robinson and a team from Sky News, working with Circles UK and Circles Providers recently produced a sensitive and very informative documentary on Circles of Support and Accountability.This evoked extremely positive responses from the public, so much so that Sky News decided to extend the viewing. What are the key messages that we can take away from this documentary?

a. We need to talk about perpetrators of sexual abuse and what to do about it in our society

Few organisations in the UK provide services for perpetrators of sexual abuse. The prevalence of sexual abuse is, however, extremely high and rising. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (published at the end of 2017), estimated that 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 3.4 million female victims and 631,000 male victims. Of the 71,905 people with convictions for sexual offences that are eligible for Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in the UK in March 2017, 73% were registered with the police. About 3,000 sex offenders are released from prison every year. A Home Office Report estimated the true costs of sexual crime to be £12.2 billion for 2015/16 with an estimated 1,259 million offences (‘The Economic and Social Costs of Crime, 2015/16’).

The Me Too Movement, high profile public enquiries into child sexual abuse and other initiatives have highlighted these official figures as only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of people do not report the sexual abuse they have been subjected to or reports to the police do not result in high numbers of successful prosecutions and convictions. There has also been numerous reports on how stretched police resources are and the NSPCC recently stated that we need more emphasis on rehabilitation and prevention as we can’t arrest our way out of the problem. For the scale of the problem in the UK, services are generally under-funded and an almost entirely reactive approach is taken to the issue. A truly preventative approach to the issue of sexual abuse is sadly lacking. We must increase services for victims and survivors of sexual abuse, but to prevent further victims we also need more services for perpetrators. A perpetrator treatment and management strategy with sufficient financial investment in the issue is long overdue.

b. Work with perpetrators prevents further victims of sexual abuse and saves resources

One of the most poignant parts of the Sky Circles documentary is the interview with ‘Rachel’, a rape survivor. This incredible woman said she supported and championed the work of Circles because she saw that it helped to prevent further sexual abuse and she has children of her own, whom she wants to protect. Her message is a powerful one because it comes from someone who has experienced the true cost of sexual abuse. Her view should matter.

The recent reduction of probation funding for Circles received significant attention in the media and from key stakeholders, supporters and survivors. The Sky News documentary refers to this within the context of how Circles reduce the risk level of those that access a Circle and assist in reducing sexual reoffending. Since probation funding was cut some Providers have stopped running Circles, thereby further reducing the already limited number of interventions that are available to perpetrators of sexual abuse in the UK – and potentially making our communities less safe. The estimated true cost of sexual offending often focuses on criminal justice related costs, but far more chilling is the cost to victims of sexual abuse – those countless lives that are damaged and broken and never quite fully repaired. The cost of a Circle (or of any effective intervention for perpetrators of sexual abuse) is small in comparison.

c. Those coming out of prison with convictions for sexual offences need both support and accountability

The documentary showed clearly how a Circle provides a careful and subtle balance between holding the person (called a Core Member in a Circle) to account, whilst offering much needed support. Research and evaluation on Circles show that they complement the risk management done by the statutory agencies and provide an additional public protection mechanism. Circles are not a substitute for this work, but they act as an additional layer to keep our communities safe. Those with convictions for sexual offences are stigmatised and marginalised by their behaviour and are often dangerously isolated when they leave prison. Many are shunned by families, partners and spouses and other networks when their abusive behaviour comes to light. Access to employment, accommodation and other mechanisms to enable them to reintegrate in a constructive manner into the community is frequently denied. Circles offer them a lifeline by providing this very necessary support and also by assisting them to build appropriate networks and relationships; all of which helps to reduce reoffending.

d. Circles Volunteers – working from within to make their communities safer and make a difference

Those who access a Circle often present a high risk of harm and reoffending. Many are individuals damaged by adverse childhood experiences including child abuse and neglect. A high percentage present with Autism Spectrum Conditions or Intellectual Disabilities. Research tells us that complex behaviour change cannot be achieved by treatment interventions and professional services alone. It is also reliant upon interventions built around relationships that develop trust and a sense of individual worth and belonging in society. These interventions are particularly effective for people who are socially isolated, are alienated from their communities and shunned by family and support networks – all the issues that most perpetrators of sexual abuse face.

The fact that Circles are provided by Volunteers is quite extraordinary. These Volunteers are particularly special as the nature of the work requires unique dedication and commitment and they often face resistance from their families, partners and friends, which is touched upon in the Sky documentary. The fact that Circles are delivered by Volunteers who give freely of their time is often one of the key aspects that positively influences the Core Member to change their behaviour. Through the Circles Volunteers, communities are given a stake in how we deal with perpetrators of sexual abuse in our society.

e. Working with the media to change public attitudes

The Circles Sky News documentary is an example of balanced and sensitive reporting of a controversial issue. It captures the complexity of sexual abuse and how Circles can provide a way to help prevent further abuse. This documentary is the result of very detailed planning and work that took place over many months. We are grateful to the Sky News journalist and her team. As a result of the documentary Circles UK and Circles Providers received more than 90 enquiries from people interested to volunteer. But more importantly public response to the film was overwhelmingly positive – so much so that Sky News took the decision to extend the viewing time. This shows that factual and sensitive reporting can do much to raise awareness and inform public opinions.

Riana Taylor
CEO, Circles UK
June 2019

Breaking Up is Always Hard to Do

As we all know, one of the very worst aspects of TR was the split between CRC and NPS that not only massively hindered the work, but also caused a degree of mistrust and resentment, especially for those staff who decided not to bail out. In some quarters these concerns remain and form part of the current uncertainty surrounding the ongoing debate as to the future shape of the profession. The following from a recent online discussion:- 

I know that some colleagues may feel this a controversial view but I would like to hear what colleagues think. I’m sensing that some colleagues in CRCs are not looking forward to being transferred to the NPS and they feel that the CRCs are more representative of what Probation was pre TR and if given the choice would prefer to stay in the CRC. Has anyone else noticed this or feels like this?

I believe these should be one service but in my CRC we have made it work and work well! I’m sad - there are lessons to be learned both sides.

*****
I have heard that some NPS colleagues have negative feelings about CRC colleagues in that they think we've failed, when it's the system that has failed. Plus I heard from a third party that some NPS colleagues feel that CRC do not deserve a pay rise cos we don't work with high risk, write reports etc. Both anecdotes fill me with dread! Plus in my CRC we have some peer mentors some of whom are ex offenders, I hope they'll be welcome cos they do a fantastic job. Yes of course we need to be renationalised but CRC staff need to feel welcome and not treated like second class and failures. That's my view.

*****
From a BBR PSO facilitator perspective I not only work with High Risk in every programme I also write 20 page reports for each BBR chap! Unbelievable views being held there by some!

*****

No way! From NPS in your area I definitely haven't had that feeling at all. The system has failed everyone not any person working on either side. And it was put forward that all colleagues should get paid the same and should be one of the main aspects of this rationalisation. TR never should have happened in the first place but I for 1 can't wait til they scrap the separation and put us back together again!

*****

I’m with you on this. I have only heard positive things and we are all v pleased about coming back together - just need to keep up the fight for the UPW/programmes comrades. X

*****

Only warm welcomes from here! X It's not mentioning the elephant in the room that the split should never had happened in the first place that gets me. x

*****

NPS colleagues. As I also mentioned we have some employees who are ex offenders and they've been a great addition to the CRC. We are after all about rehabilitation and second chances, will they pass the Police vetting?

*****
My view is we need to stand together, get back together, all of us including programmes and UPW. I know the feeling, more changes ahead and no one knows how this is going to work but we need to look after each other. Divisiveness will not help us. Yes there are lessons to learn indeed on both sides but perhaps it is the good stuff we can focus on. Overall we need to look after each other to once again be One Service first.

*****
One new organisation together. David Raho

*****

Yes I agree a new improved one. As I said there are definitely some stuff that needs looking at with “post TR” goggles on.

*****
I would rather stay in the CRC than be assimilated by a dysfunctional organisation. The NPS is like a prison without bars custom made to restrict probation staff. Done some repping that side and much prefer it this side of the fence where we actually have HR people and less robots and better tech etc. It's no picnic but the sandwiches taste better and there is less arrogance and jobsworths. The system failed, not hardworking CRC probation staff. We need a new organisation. David Raho

*****
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this mood amongst many across the country. It is a mixed picture. The core of the concern is that probation must be a locally responsive, locally accountable service. In some ways the CRCs are more local than the nationalised, centralised, bureaucratic one-size-fits-all-&-really-uncomfortably-&-don't-moan NPS. Our view is that what has been announced so far is at best a positive first step - a big one they can't climb back from - but ultimately it will need to continue evolving into a fully unified, fully devolved local public service. Dean Rogers

*****
I thought I was imagining it but clearly some colleagues feel the grass is greener in the CRCs (some of them anyway). TR2 (can we call it that ) I fear will be a disaster worse than TR. It’s a bit like Humpty Dumpty all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put probation back together again.

*****
Probation needs to move forward towards something else otherwise it's just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and as you say will predictably be disastrous. There are some good suggestions floating about, however I am not convinced that key people in the MoJ get it yet. David Raho

*****
Move the NPS into the CRCs.

*****
That has been suggested but my own thinking is along the lines of a newly formed organisation a bit like enlarged Trusts with commissioning powers. Locally accountable and one step removed from central government. David Raho

*****
I described TR as running over an egg with a streamroller and now trying to stick it back together again. It needs a lot more thinking about. Dean Rogers

*****
I agree. A lot more thinking needs to be done. The current timescales are ridiculous and force too many expediencies and compromises. What may seem to be a practical solution to the MoJ is not. They need to have vision, courage and the drive to build something fit for purpose that is as right as possible from the get go. I understand what you were saying about evolving and devolving but what I want to see is a quantum leap by the MoJ in their thinking about probation and for them to start joining things up and making use of the possibilities and window of opportunity available now before the unique set of circumstances evaporate into the ether. Every day I feel a growing sense of urgency that they are simply going to let things take their course because it’s all they know and are used to rather than gripping the live wires and harnessing all the energy to make something really good. Unfortunately it is like the Dementors from Harry Potter are in charge of TR2 and focused on sucking the soul out of Probation rather than making something better. If they came up with an original plan I’d be so shocked I might give up Marmite for 48 hours. David Raho

*****
I can just see the faces of NPS programmes staff being told they too are being sold off down the private river just like the other CRC programme staff! I’m in the CRC and yet I deliver programmes to high riskers every day....

*****
The issue you have with all the suggestions other then assimilation is that this would require the MoJ to acknowledge the serious shortcomings in the NPS, which it shows no sign of doing. The things we cite as critical flaws such as the bureaucratisation of probation work, the national uniformity and the standardisation of 'quality' are heralded as triumphs of the NPS. You just have to look at the PR that comes out from HMPPS about three sides of the NPS to see that they are unlikely to rewrite the model and relinquish that direct control. Add to that the further erosion of probation autonomy that is OMiC and it's hard to see how the vision of a full return to localised probation provision is even possible let alone desirable to the policy makers at MoJ.

*****
In many ways it will be unrealistic to expect the big State department to accept its flaws - that's at the root of what's wrong. Probation has to keep the debate going and keep arguing for continued evolution. On a positive note though - the MoJ is a hugely vulnerable department - an experiment from 1997 that hasn't worked. A new regime or new perspective on the MoJ - one that gives up on it and starts again - is a real possibility and could accelerate the evolution for probation. After all in 2000 they had a big idea of setting an NPS and quickly gave up. It is just important not to allow barriers to further devolution to be erected now. Dean Rogers

*****
Our best hope I think is that justice gets swept up in the wider devolution agenda and that as a result the provision of probation services falls to new local governance structures. It makes sense, take London for example, probation work is so interconnected with MOPACs work it would make sense for probation to be overseen by that office.

*****
Indeed - the challenge there though is how almost bankrupt local structures afford to take staff on? MOPAC want the accountability to rest with them but not the cost/responsibility of staff. There are ways to do it but it gets a bit complicated and needs care and attention. Dean Rogers

*****
Agreed. The answer probably lies with voting in a government with a genuine desire to have a well run and well funded public sector. Not just grind it into the dirt in the name of austerity. We live in hope.

*****
That's my experience too. CRC staff deal with HRoSH cases everyday in BBR and RESOLVE groups. It's okay unions saying 'ultimately' 'eventually and talking about 'evolution' but my fear is that offender management gets through the reunification door and the MoJ slams it behind them leaving Interventions outside for the sharks to devour. That's not acceptable!

*****
Not acceptable is putting it mildly. And we stay at the bottom of the pay scale still whilst dealing with high riskers! Even TSP has its fair share of violent and sexual offenders, all programmes do. I’m sad to say but I just can’t hang around and watch our careers decimated by yet another split. At some point I’ll stop my whinges and leave, among with many other highly experienced staff we know.

*****
Most of us in my office (NPS and CRC) who were there pre TR think it’s amazing news and still view each other as one. A lot of new staff have no knowledge of pre TR and their views are different I find.

***** 
I left NPS because I do not like the travel of direction. It is a relentless monolithic organisation that has not a care for its employees. HMP Probation is not an organisation I wish to be associated with.

*****
It may depend on where people are and what service they have been allowed to deliver. Management makes the biggest difference, whether NPS or CRC. Some CRCs have had huge caseloads and not enough time to do any work.

*****
As a temp working around various CRCs and a year of NPS - both are flawed under TR. the civil service approach is dysfunctional and doesn’t respond to local needs of staff or offenders whilst CRC’s are profit driven hence the problems there. Just a thought for MoJ, how about local trusts - now there’s an idea!

*****
I think CRCs main problem is the unmanageable caseloads. There is room for innovation and it is encouraged but when you have the day job to do there isn’t enough time for innovation. It's so stressful and so many staff have left as a result. Being one organisation will be good but I have had over a decade of NPS experience so my views may be different to others. I think us old timers from both NPS and CRC welcome it. From my experience I think it’s the less experienced staff on both sides (who’ve only known it as it is) who have the problem. That is a generalisation I know.

*****
I agree as an old timer. We know, and understand the complexity of the criminal system, but, I hope that when we are together again, the NPS might listen to some of the newer ideals. It’s up to us old timers to teach the newbies about Probation, as before, it’s not about ‘book’ learning but an understanding, a caring. Those we all deal with have complex needs. It’s a unique role for all Probation staff.

*****
The sad part of all this is that we are under the skin one service. The issues that have between staff in various camps is because of the dismal few who have spread their dark words and deeds and people have listened and believed. The wage increase was done deliberately to create a divide and if you look deeper some stupid people have bought into it. Well let me tell you, I have worked in and out of this service since 1990. I have in the main been as loyal an employee as I can be. I have been reorganised 15 times! And done all that has been asked of me. I’m better than no one. And no one is better than me. If what some believe is their right to be payed more than me because of the risk process. Well let me tell you this. Almost all of my 77 red red/Amber risk punters are in the community. Not tucked up in side. I deal with DV perps day in day out and I consider them to be most of the risky individuals posing risks to all including children whom I took a pledge to protect along with all probation employees. So if some of those individuals don’t think I’m worth my wage well it’s back at you. Because my worth is that I’m a trained probation officer. I learned my trade when being a PO meant a hell of a lot. Civil service will never knock that out of me. No matter how they see me as second class. So let me tell those NPS colleagues who think they are better than me. Then hello cos no you are not. Because I come second to no one. So if it’s to be a reunion then best those colleagues keep their views to themselves cos like it or lump it back CRC are coming. And just remember it was not the workers the genuine workers who ever wanted the split.

*****

I think there are issues on both sides, all of which have been covered very eloquently by responses to this post. Without sounding trite I guess it doesn’t ultimately matter what individuals feel about which is better - CRC or NPS. The priority is what’s best for the service users and public and TR2 must be better than what they’ve had over the past 4 years.

*****
The problem with both sides as a retired PO is the ethos of why Probation started has got lost, and why therefore believed in it and that it would make a difference to those less fortunate who for some were very risky individuals and needed guidance.

*****
It's not CRC coming into NPS, it's both coming together as a new service, hopefully drawing on the strengths of both. No one is better than anyone else, though I have heard those views. I'm CRC seconded to NPS and I've seen the good and bad aspects of both services, the blue print for the new service brings in the good aspects in my view. If we set aside issues of pay etc, which will hopefully be sorted - we are all trained professionals and should receive the same wage for the tough job we do - we should be looking at working towards the common goals we always have - protecting the public and rehabilitating those we work with. 

*****
I was working in Xxxxxxx pre split and loved it. When the split happened I was allocated to the CRC, that was not my choice and I resented it at first. Looking at it now, I'm glad I was put in the CRC. I've had abuse from all agencies slating the CRC where I've had to remind them I work for the CRC, I've also heard constant put downs about the CRC by NPS colleagues. It's those put downs that need to be addressed, how can we move forward and merge back without addressing what happened/was said in the past. I'm not comfortable in the merge back for that very reason and if I am in the service at the point the merge happens I hope it's addressed. To be perfectly honest when I first heard the CRC was finishing I was gutted and instantly had reservations about moving into one service again. Some NPS staff have been very supportive especially in the small office we work in and good colleagues, but it's those minority within NPS Teams that have constantly slated the CRC feeding the divide that have caused anxiety/unrest about the merger back... Also our new CRC provider seems like a decent employer to date...

*****
None of us had a choice over the split. I went on strike and yet I was placed in the CRC camp. I want us to be one service again... so I hope it all gets figured out as I miss my colleagues (whom I never wanted to be parted from!).

*****
What I really find dismaying is the fact that there is a debate about the reunification of the Probation Service! Why do some feel others are less worthy. Sometimes it’s good to look out over that wall and see beyond your own beliefs because every single probation person on both sides has a role to play. I’m not going to say new venture because we’re like a broken toy at the moment waiting to put all the limbs back in their rightful place. So let’s all pull together because there has been enough tug of war - no one from where I’m sitting is a winner. Same punters same service. Same difference.

*****
It’s not reunification. A huge amount of colleagues in UPW, progs, TTG are remaining private.

*****
It's important to acknowledge CRC staff are not returning to a pre-TR nirvana (if one ever existed) but a highly bureaucratic 'top down' NPS. The main strength will be bringing most staff back under national collective bargaining. I know some on this thread have argued they can get better deals in local CRCs, but I don't see much evidence of that over that last 5 years. Whatever marginal gains have been made for some members have been more than offset by cuts and impoverishment of of service elsewhere. Just ask ex-Working Links staff.

*****

The NPS has flaws. In my view the work 'in the room' could often be a lot better. I personally know CRC colleagues who excel at this. No one organisation can be said to be better at everything.

*****
I think the message seems to be unclear - it is not that the CRC’s are being ‘taken over’ by the NPS but more that both the CRC and NPS are coming together as a new service. Hopefully it will eradicate some of the ‘superiority complex’ that there seems to be.

*****
What I would like to see is a completely new unified service. There isn’t currently a plan to do this. CRC contracts end in 2021. CRCs then revert to the client which is the MoJ of which the NPS is one of their services. One of the mechanisms for transferring different groups or all staff to the NPS is TUPE. What I am proposing is that a new improved organisation the National Probation Agency is created with traditional probation values and the care, supervision, rehabilitation and resettlement of those who have committed crime at its foundation. Staff from both the NPS and former CRC staff can then be TUPE'd to this. 

Simple really. I think this message is clear. I am not anti any group of staff or any particular organisation. When commissioning and contracting providers to do work whether private or public sector, it’s a challenge to get the contracts and operating model right. There is of course much to learn from TR1 but the definition of stupidity is to repeat the same mistakes expecting a different outcome. 

The centralised NPS model has major flaws and and is financially a failure. The private providers were sold a pup and hamstrung from the outset having trusted the MoJ too much and the third sector had funding cut. We need to use what we have learned and come up with something better and say to the MoJ ‘Are we learning yet?’ If they are not learning then we need to point them in the right direction because past experience indicates some distorted thinking and a definite tendency to ignore expert advice and ultimately indulge in poor decision making at our expense. David Raho