Here we have highlights from the latest Napo mailout to members on Friday:-
Probation Trade Unions set to submit additional Pay Claim as inflation shows no sign of abating
Over the last few weeks the Probation Trade unions have been in dialogue about the worsening economic position and have recently served notice on the Probation Service that we intend to revisit the 3-year pay deal and submit a supplementary claim on behalf of our members. Of course, there is no guarantee as to what the employer’s response will be other than confirmation that they will engage in dialogue. If we are faced with a rejection of our claim then we will be consulting members as to the future direction that you want us to take. So please look out for more news and upcoming joint meetings alongside members of our sister unions.
Survey around Enforcement Officer proposals reveals anger
A joint Unison and and Napo survey has revealed significant anger around Enforcement Officer Proposals with 90% did not believe that their court team had the staffing or resources to take on this work
Many thanks go to those Napo members who took part in such impressive numbers in the recent Napo and UNISON survey of our respective members who work in courts. The purpose of the survey was to find out our members’ views of the employer’s proposal to require enforcement officers/court officers/court PSOs to prosecute contested breach trials.
The survey showed overwhelming opposition to the proposal on the following grounds from the members who responded. The key results are as follows:
- Only 6% of respondents currently prosecute contested breach trials
- Only 10% of respondents had undertaken the three-day training course to equip them to prosecute contested breach trials
- 91% said that they would object to prosecuting contested breach trials without an increase in pay
- 90% did not believe that their court team had the staffing or resources to take on this work
- 51% said that their court team would be unable to cope with the associated increase in workload and pressure
- 49% were not at all confident, and 41% were not very confident, that they would get the necessary management support to take on this work
- 56% were not at all confident, and 36% were not very confident, that they would get the legal support to take on this work
- 53% were not at all confident, and 36% were not very confident, that they would be competent to carry out this work after undertaking the three-day training course
- 83% of respondents support the creation of a new Senior Enforcement Officer role at pay band 4 or above to take on this work in Regions.
Further engagement is scheduled with the employer next week and we will try and bring members the latest news soon afterwards.
VLO Update 19 May 2023
We have met with the JES team to discuss the omissions from the job description and pleased to note it was a really constructive meeting in which they have clearly heard what has been further submitted by our VLO members and have included a lot into the draft version. They will now take it away to add in the new content and come back to us with a revised version for further comment. It is good to report back that the employer appears committed to getting this right so have pushed back the date for the completion of the annex A. More comms to follow.
If they had fought the pay offer properly in the first place instead of their weak “we’re not going to tell you what to do but it’s the best we can get” approach towards members.
ReplyDeleteNAPO have created a position whereby some POs are paid at Band 5 and some PSOs are claiming for Band 4 for doing court work that was previously a probation officers role.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of PO grade staff are being de-skilled and did-enfranchised with the active connivance of NAPO who have presided over the erosion of role boundaries and actively encouraged encroachment.
Add to the above the tacit surrender in the last pay negotiations with a belated attempt at a review and a non ballot for the post of GS and it is hard to not conclude that there is something not right in all of this.
Napo if we see through this rubbish you must realise so do the employers. Percentages of respondent's to your survey. What staff group exactly ? Which grades and the number of real returns is going to be small. Probably less than a 100 real return is not going to pull out a whole service on strike is it. Worse yet the pay we get you Napo bolted out of doing your job and failed to lead a dispute to real action. Again if I was the employer side I would say thanks for your pay claim but as you know we the employers are busy and had in good faith signed of a 3 year agreement with you. In that deal we agreed the pay increase and you did not object or raise any concern as you said your members accepted the the terms you agreed in the collective arrangements. We are not costed in budget to add any further to the wage bill. Nor indeed are we able to reopen a closed agreement until the usual pay negotiations when the deal runs out. We would be unable to find any precedent where a new arrangement could be justified given you agreed to the terms over 3 years and at no point suggested any inflation clauses. We have to conclude that you were fully aware of the agreements terms and accepted them or are suggesting renegotiation based on what exactly. Any action you might threaten would be illegitimate in light of the deal and therefore have no consequence other than to raise false expectation with your members. Blah blah get lost. In view of the vlos je process we acknowledge you helped us reduce the band from 4 to 3 nationally to offer consistency to all. Yet it favoured po vlo to level 4 protected so achieved a hostile pay cut. In relation to them changing the je process we are hoping to ensure to vlos remain oppressed in pay as unqualified staff. We also intend to pay some staff in the teams at 4 delivering a broader base skills mix rewards scheme. Not unlike your own pay structure the least able on the most money. In prosecuting disputed cases pos and psos have always fine this in smaller numbers and there is no change of scope for the work we are just formalising this practice across the service to ensure breaches happen promptly and we can assist to clear cases that are not workable. This will reduce burdens on staff carrying breach cases not cleared of our resources. Let us not pretend this is new or difficult work to present the facts in a disputed case. Staff will be trained in practice and a specialism will develop quickly to resolve this outstanding gap in returning failed orders to alternative court disposals. Breach court officers have existed for many years Napo and mainly psos.
ReplyDeletenapo are simply commissioning an extension to the existing road to ruin
ReplyDeleteLong, long time past I was a court po with responsibility for prosecuting breaches. We had a retained practising criminal lawyer to deal with contested breaches. In my experience most potential NG pleas could be resolved after a brief face-to-face discussion with the case & a word with the supervising officer on the day (we had an office in the court building with telephone lines & a facsimile machine to receive copies of hastily amended reports), but those who insisted on contesting matters had their cases adjourned & our solicitor was notified. For a few years there was a court pso who had been legally trained prior to joining probation & they were a much treasured - & well protected - asset.
The disappearing ink of role boundaries was particularly popular with Trusts as increasing numbers of pso grades were employed to effectively replace expensive po grade staff; hence ceo's could please their tick-box-orientated masters in noms by making the numbers work.
It was, with hindsight, a dry-run for the CRC model.
You're right - the more I look back the more I realise that straw et al were as committed as grayling to privatise probation work. The trusts were just a dress rehearsal, exploiting the inflated egos of those made ceo's of the trusts to experiment on the probation workforce, e.g. how many po's could you replace with pso's before the union kicked off?
DeleteThe annexation of London upw was the press night in anticpation of the MoJ's next blockbuster:
"The Ministry of Justice announced that Serco, in partnership with London Probation Trust, had won the four-year contract worth £37m, under which 15,000 offenders carry out 1.3m hours of unpaid work."
The show didn't achieve the anticipated, rapturous reception the MoJ expected:
2014: "A private security firm has had its multi-million pound contract to manage community punishments cut short amid claims the scheme has been “a disaster”
Qu'elle surprise, neither did TR, The Sequel:
"At one minute past midnight this morning (16 May 2019), The Ministry of Justice issued the long awaited press release announcing that much of its Transforming Rehabilitation probation reform project is being put into reverse."
The annexation of London upw it was this single failure by ledger Wilson not to raise hell in Napo that saw the green light to tr. They were both told but as usual they knew better and look at what's happened there are no polite words for these two .
DeleteSo basically not even the employers know what VLO's are for, I don't find that surprising.
ReplyDeletewell worth a listen
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
Gartree, outside Market Harborough, is a rural Leicestershire village which hosts an unusual prison. HMP Gartree is a category B prison for people serving life sentences. When producer Polly Weston arrives in the postcode, she is drawn to the village by the big yellow banners in the hedgerows which say "Stop the new prison". The Ministry of Justice hope to build a new super prison here, housing another 1700 people. On her first trip, the Gartree Action Group are deep in preparations to fight the forthcoming planning inquiry. But at the planning meeting she realises that the village itself was originally built to house prison officers, and while the properties were all sold off long ago, to this day a number of former prison officers remain here and are part of the planning objection group. They claim the current prison is short staffed. Is it true? While waiting to be allowed to go and visit the prison, we track down former prisoners to talk about prison staffing and what they witnessed unfold inside the jail.
The Union in for a predictable slating in the JB comments section, fiddling while Rome burns etc. To an extent this is earnt criticism, but starting from a "we are where we are" position, where we are is in the wrong place - HMPPS- and demoralised and exhausted after nealy a decade of catastrophic organisational change. Even if the Union leadership was minded to lead a revolt and argue for wholesale re-reorganisation, would the membership have the heart to back this. Is there sufficient membership even if they did? I think a good number of the most vociferous commenters here are onlookers, albeit with lived experience of probation one way or another: the bulk of knackered frontline staff are too tired, too worried about meeting the bills on their dwindling wages, too nervous about an SFO in their excessive caseload, to contemplate any more risk taking and kicking over the traces.
ReplyDeleteYour right some commentators have massive experience and many on here actually tried to ensure Napo did not take the erroneous route it did. Instead the leadership the chairs thwarted all alternate strategies. In many cases attacked their own activists. Napo is dysfunctional has no office and is breadcrumb using all monies to cover salary having shrunk to a small band. Where's the press and pr output none. The staff today don't know what else probation could be.
DeleteI agree with you annon@07:17, and you ask the questions many seem to want to avoid.
DeleteThe reason "we are where we are" requires a far more complex investigation then just pointing to TR and failings by the unions to support and rally the workforce.
Obviously people will look to the unions when they're concerned about pay, workloads and conditions, but in my opinion the real failure by the unions (and the workforce) was not fighting enough to retain the professional status of probation.
Lowering the qualification for entry to the service saw a shift away from seeing the probation officers status as a "white collar professional" with autonomy, to a "blue collar " manual employee that needs managing and are required to be compliant with whatever instructions (good or bad) management dictate. That shift changes not only the whole dynamics of the workforce, reducing bargaining power and creating a JFDO culture, but it also impacts on the focus of the unions. Everything becomes about the nitty gritty bits of an employee's daily grind, and far less about protecting a profession.
Theres a lot of very different variables that's brought probation to where it finds itself today, and in my opinion everybody has been complicit in different ways and different degrees.
I feel when the future essay question is set "What ever happened to probation? Discuss", it will take far more then 1500 words to explain.
'Getafix
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Deletenapo is encapsulated by these excerpts from the above:
* we intend to...
* please look out for more news...
* we intend to revisit ...
* there is no guarantee as to what the employer’s response will be...
* we have formally written to the employer...
* Further engagement is scheduled...
* we will try and bring members the latest news...
* it was a really constructive meeting...
* It is good to report back that the employer appears committed to getting this right so have pushed back the date...
napo has been played by noms/hmpps/moj for over a decade - spurr, grayling, copple, romeo et al have all had their fun at the expense of the probation union, while napo naiively claim they have got the employer in a vice-like grip, that they are running the agenda. Its been said often & merits being said again: napo are so far behind the curve they're beyond the event horizon & in a different universe.
However despicable the hmpps strategy is, however anti-probation & remote from frontline action, it has to be acknowledged they are light years ahead.
Probation as a profession is, like raab, toast. Its now a civil service task for predominantly EO grades, aka a spreadsheet filler-inner. Some may be elevated to HEO & the most compliant could even make SEO.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/onscivilservantgradesandsalarybands
I don't see why it is predictable to slate Napo. Performing unions are well supported crap unions are not. Not an elected leader is he. Just walked in by the top table of cronies. Not my union .
Delete(Min - max range)
DeleteExecutive Officer (EO) National £24,836 £29,086
Executive Officer (EO) London £27,696 £32,186
Higher Executive Officer (HEO) National £31,055 £35,286
Higher Executive Officer (HEO) London £34,055 £38,331
Higher Executive Officer (HEO) Specialist National £31,555 £35,286
Higher Executive Officer (HEO) Specialist London £34,555 £38,386
Fast Stream £33,847 £38,386
Senior Executive Officer (SEO) National £37,688 £42,519
Senior Executive Officer (SEO) London £40,688 £45,619
Senior Executive Officer (SEO) Specialist National £39,188 £43,552
Senior Executive Officer (SEO) Specialist London £42,188 £46,652
Haha forget executive officers. Even Napo admin earn more than the Probation Officers their boss is failing to represent properly.
DeleteAdministrator to the General Secretary and Trade Union Organisation
Salary: £31,416 to £34.670pa exclusive of London Allowance (£4,729 pa).
https://www.napo.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023%20Admin%20GSTUO%20-%20Advert.pdf
Raab to stand down. Another rat off the sinking ship, but its taking so long to sink. If he had any decency he'd legislate to get the IPP prisoners on a path to release. Best done by an outgoing regime and they know they are outgoing
ReplyDeleteyou'd be better directing the ipp comments to alex chalk; raab's already toast & on the backbenches
DeleteIn fairness there have been 10 justice ministers in 8 years. This averages out at 9.6 months per incumbent. Tells you all you need to know really….
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point in submitting an additional pay claim when members have already accepted the pay offer. This is what employer will say
ReplyDeleteIt illustrated the stupidity of Napo current . Sometime back Napo would have managed properly but today the members get what they deserve.
DeleteMost probation officers would recommend IPPs if still around the PSRs I read where they put the boot in , the tone is dreadful
ReplyDeleteNo not really. It’s what we were told to do. If the Courts requested POs consider dangerousness in PSRs then that’s what had to do. If dangerousness was met, probation guidelines was to consider an IPP. We made recommendations which Judges did not have to follow.
DeleteThe "just following orders" defence, as predicted.
DeleteNo not really. We were following the law.
DeleteFollowing? Should be leading.
DeleteNot so much just following orders 8:32 rather, following the law and Judges directions !
ReplyDeleteProbation report writers used to be creative creatures. In the most difficult cases (when IPPs were a live issue) I would explain to the judge in my report that I was not in any position to determine an individuals' "dangerousness" because it was a subjective notion; there were no tools in a probation officer's toolbox to make such a sweeping assessment of any one person. I would offer a considered risk assessment with a narrative, & highlight relevant aspects of other professionals' reports (e.g. psychiatrist, psychologist, neurologist...) if they were available to read - something I would also try to do so anything I suggested wasn't incompatible with someone's mental/emotional capacity. There was never any reason to fall into the trap of "if dangerousness was met" or "is an IPP required".
DeleteNone of my reports were ever rejected by any judge, or questioned, or criticised... and none of those cases received an IPP. I provided a considered narrative, the judge delivered the sentence.
Yes I did my job properly at the time of IPP too but can’t claim any great foresight about these sentences. The dangerous test HAD to be addressed if the Judge requested it so previous Schedule 15 offence, current schedule 15 offence then the test was on. I am sick of hearing colleagues ex-colleagues claim to recognise the harm of IPP sentences before they were imposed so widely when parliament didn’t, the courts didn’t, defence barristers didn’t, charities didn’t and it was only after several years that the statistics emerged to evidence greater use than was intended.
DeleteThe problem wasn’t actually with probation for proposing IPPs. The problem was always with the prisons that didn’t provide the interventions that were intended to be completed during the tariff period.
Delete@06:25 - it wasn't foresight, hindsight or any kind of magical thinking; it was simply resistance at the time to the notion of an indeterminate sentence based upon political confection & a so-called 'test'.
DeleteWith hindsight, however, I am pleased I took a stance.
Sorry if it made you feel sick.
“Based on political confection” err shurely shome mistake as think it was based on the law ie CJA 2003
DeleteAn Act brought into being by a string of policiticians - straw, blunkett, clarke.
DeleteEnforcement of court orders is 'the law', but boateng used that as a catchy political amuse bouche.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272221/6717.pdf
"Where the court assess a sexual or violent offender as posing a significant risk to the public, and the offence committed carries a maximum penalty of ten years or more, they may impose an indeterminate custodial sentence for public protection... Where an indeterminate sentence is imposed the offender will not be released into the community until the Parole Board assess that it is safe to do so. In some cases, this may be never."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/229/2005-04-04
"it falls to a court to assess under any of sections 225 to 228 whether there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further such offences."
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Dangerousness_finalweb.pdf
"One area in which this concern with dangerousness has been particularly prominent is in the field of criminal justice... Where once there was an optimistic and positive ambition that the criminal justice system should be used sparingly and should rehabilitate offenders and provide welfare and support to those in need, it is argued here that this has been replaced by more conservative and defensive approaches that seek to minimise and contain risk through an expansion of the apparatus of control."
In other words, political confection made law.
Ah yes, an Act of Parliament
Deletehttps://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-65707160.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16850465805009&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
ReplyDeleteThree Greater Manchester probation services have been ordered to improve after inspectors found under-pressure staffing levels could be leaving people at risk.
DeleteInspections were carried out at so-called probation delivery units in Manchester, Wigan and Tameside.
They were each found to be under-resourced and were rated as requiring improvement.
However, inspectors praised staff members' work to prevent reoffending.
HM Inspectorate of Probation visited Wigan and Tameside in March while North Manchester was inspected in February.
Inspectors said "long-standing" resourcing issues meant some individual workloads were excessive at Manchester North, which "impacted upon the quality of work".
Chief Inspector Justin Russell said despite "positive foundations" with an "impressive suite" of partnership services in the city, it was "disappointing" to see the "noticeably poor" areas "such as keeping people safe".
'Insufficient risk prevention'
The inspection did praise some elements of Manchester North's work with individuals, which was "beginning to have an impact in relation to work undertaken with Black, Asian and minority ethnic people on probation".
Recommendations included ensuring appropriate activity was always undertaken following domestic abuse or safeguarding enquiries.
Inspectors said Wigan's rating "masks some very positive aspects of practice"
But they said that had not yet had time to take effect and work to assess and manage the risk of harm and to keep other people safe was "insufficient".
It praised its "highly motivated staff" and "impressive" leadership and services for women, including those who were victims of abuse, as well as the youth offending service.
But Mr Russell said: "Experiences of people with a black, Asian or minority ethnic background needed to be better understood so that structural barriers, disproportionality and the known adverse effects of racial discrimination can be addressed."
Tameside leadership and staff were praised but inspectors said the service was "substantially under-resourced with only half of the probation officers they need"
This was "understandably having an impact on their ability to properly manage people on probation, specifically around issues such as risk of harm," the watchdog continued.
Mr Russell said he was "concerned with our findings around keeping people safe from potential harm, particularly children who may be at risk of domestic abuse, and the service must find a way to make this a priority".
He commended projects, supported through the the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, to provide accommodation for people on probation and prevent them from becoming homeless.
Mr Russell said: "Greater Manchester probation services are already making the improvements we need to see.
"They have strong leadership, services in place to deter people from reoffending, and there's hope they will be back to a full workforce by the end of 2023."
But he added: "All this hard work is not translating to the supervision of people on probation, particularly around the potential risk of harm they may pose to others.
"While this is concerning, we think they can build the positive work we have seen, such as services to tackle homelessness and safeguard people from domestic abuse."
A Ministry of Justice (MOJ) spokesman said: "We are pleased inspectors recognised the strong leadership behind the teams and we have taken immediate action to address the issues raised by inspectors."
He said that included additional training for staff to improve risk assessments and more regular quality checks on management plans for offenders.
The MOJ said it had invested an extra 155m a year into the Probation Service and was recruiting record numbers of staff "to deliver tougher supervision and keep the public safe".
"Three Greater Manchester probation services have been ordered to improve... 'Insufficient risk prevention'... concerned with our findings around keeping people safe from potential harm, particularly children who may be at risk of domestic abuse... "Experiences of people with a black, Asian or minority ethnic background needed to be better understood so that structural barriers, disproportionality and the known adverse effects of racial discrimination can be addressed."
DeleteBut its another Justin special:
"They have strong leadership... "impressive" leadership... "
MoJ: "We are pleased inspectors recognised the strong leadership behind the teams"
It just makes a mockery of the inspection process.
"Strong leadership" (see also 'excellent leaders', 'impressive leaders') is newspeak for "bullies rule the roost"; it clearly doesn't mean the organisation is being led well, efficiently or honestly; nor is it achieving what it is supposed to achieve:
Delete"A Ministry of Justice (MOJ) spokesman said: "We are pleased inspectors recognised the strong leadership behind the teams [we're fucking chuffed to bits] and we have taken immediate action to address the issues raised by inspectors [we're going to hammer frontline staff who have let us down]."
Cue: "He said that included additional training for staff to improve risk assessments and more regular quality checks on management plans for offenders."
If only we had an inspector of probation who was prepared to speak truth to power, as opposed to someone jealously guarding their not inconsiderable salary, pension & fringe benefits by consistently publishing equivocal bollocks that MoJ can use to reinforce their uselessness & ensure the malaise is never treated at source.
moj/hmpps is a chronically sick organisation.
"Tougher supervision" FFS. It really is time Probation was peeled away from the Civil Service, and stright-line top-down control by politicians.
DeleteBut NSD PO’s are paid at band 5. So Band 4 PO’s are being ripped off. When’s Napo sorting that out?
ReplyDeleteBlame the PCTL practitioners they got band 5 before they did
DeleteThe inspectorate, and the revered leaders need to make a decision about what it is they want.
ReplyDeleteDo the want probation staff to engage and work with people around risk reduction and reducing re-offending, or do they want constant repetitive form filling and OAsys revising which they use to cover their backs and point the finger of blame when something goes wrong.
You can’t have both and do each to a high standard.
Good to see that leadership remains strong. Makes you wonder why the services outlined are so heavily criticised. Probation appears to be one of a few organisations where leadership and outcomes are not related. Good job if you can get one. On another note I have noticed a few people questioning the relative of staff working in the national security arena. This was debated a number of years ago when probation leads were appointed to sit within local CTUs. At that time the jobs were funded by the Home Office and it was felt band 5 added some weight to the role. Especially given the relationships with the police. At the time of the appointments a number of POs were successful and promoted to SPO. I have had my feet up for a few years and whilst I am not aware of the current rationale, it’s likely that these early decisions impacted on the job evaluation. For what it’s worth they carried significant added responsibilities, and a number of safety issues warranted this approach. Although in truth the Home Office cash was the main factor in taking this approach.
ReplyDeleteHow are we so poor at doing our jobs but we have strong / excellent leaders? I wonder what Justin thinks the disconnect is?
ReplyDeleteWhen are we getting our cost of living payment? I'm sure a few of us really need it so why the lack of info from Hmpps?
ReplyDelete