Contribution Selection

There's an awful lot going on in the criminal justice world at the moment with crises in most parts of our criminal justice systems and particularly the probation and prison service's. As a consequence, I'm particularly heartened by what appears to be the fairly recent re-energisation of our readers and contributors. It's re-energised me and I'd like to thank you all! Here's my recent pick:- 

Tone deaf doesn’t even begin to cover it. The MoJ and HMPPS simply don’t listen to their staff. The people designing policies and making the big decisions are so far removed from the frontline it’s almost laughable. My head in hands in despair I’ve just watched the news about deporting foreign national prisoners, electronic tags, and ‘tougher’ unpaid work, all to achieve the only thing they seem to care about: reducing prison overcrowding. They have no insight into the causes of offending and imprisonment. Just as with the all these probation officer recruitment campaigns peppered with young white middle-class female graduates claiming to ‘make a difference’ or represent diverse communities, it’s so out of touch they might as well rip up the half-baked, back-of-a-fag-packet blueprints, wait for ChatGPT-5, and just do what the computer says. Forget waiting for “probation leaders” to say anything above the parapet.

All we ever ask for is simple: fairer pay, better access to support services for the ‘PiPs’ and ‘PoPs’, legislation to make it happen, give probation some credibility instead of running it into the ground as an overflow tank for the prison service, and to stop being forced into pointless, performance-driven, civil service tick-box practices that don’t work.

There’s been a lot on here recently about staff-led initiatives and recommendations, but the reality is stark no matter what we think, feel or say. I came across this comment on one of the recent Napo articles by a fellow probation officer, and it sums it up where we are perfectly.

“…it will likely be overlooked by probation services, HMPPS, and much of the academic establishment.”

******

I’ve got nothing against white, middle-class females or graduates training as POs, but we do need a broader range of backgrounds, experiences, and skills. Right now, everyone tends to look and think the same. At 26, fresh out of university, how much real insight can most have into offending or the causes of crime? Selling probation as a “career protecting the public while supporting rehabilitation” doesn’t help either, it’s vague to the point of meaning very little.

******

The only positive of being a civil servant is that you can transfer across to another department relatively easily. Have a look on Civil Service Jobs for example. Better pay, work only contracted hours, proper meal breaks etc. Goodwill is dead, it is a one way street. Look after yourself and get out!

******

All I can see happening from these proposals is the recall rate rocketing, which will hardly ease the pressures on the prison population. There is just TOO MANY PEOPLE being shoved through the probation service. Increasing the probation capacity is not going to reduce the prison population. The focus needs to be about how best remove people from the criminal justice revolving door system, and not looking at how best to accommodate them within it.

******

And that’s exactly why they need to listen to the right people, whether the focus is on getting people out of the criminal justice revolving door, finding better ways to accommodate them within it, or preventing them from entering it in the first place.

I’m sick to death of seeing people who haven’t been near a probation office or held a caseload in years, if ever, dictating, designing, and inspecting what probation does. It’s demoralising for those that are there every day, making them feel frustrated and inadequate.

Many are proud to be probation officers, working daily alongside those on probation, with colleagues and services in every imaginable context. Real probation work. Real challenges.

Those delivering day in, day out deserve support, not endless criticism or the constant barrage of being done to. They don’t need people far removed from the frontline endlessly telling them what to do, constantly rewriting the rules, and never once genuinely asking for, let alone using, the insight of those actually doing the job.

Probation officers are all aiming for the same thing: helping people change for the better, overcome struggles, and live offence-free lives. It should be a network of encouragement and collaboration, not a hierarchy of managers and ministers in their ivory towers, academics in their cosy libraries, think-tanks detached from reality, or even certain ex-offenders with lived experience who’d rather take shots at probation officers than try to understand what’s really happening.

Because in the end, experience on the ground matters just as much as what’s on paper. I remember when probation was full of people who had a voice and spoke for probation, some were legendary, challenging senior management and ministers alike. Until we get back to that, until we have a less demoralised or docile workforce, until we have genuine leaders who know what probation is, or should be, until those in charge truly listen to the frontline, then nothing will really change. Because if we did, much of these policies wouldn’t pass quality control.

*****

A couple of observations if I may, first the inclusion of sex offenders is very sensible as that cohort has one of the lowest recividism rates. You can't see past your own prejudices when it comes to SO's and using them to appeal to public sympathy just stokes that prejudice further.

Second, the rate of recalls, which have reached absurd levels, was always going to come back to bite your backsides. The fact that you use tools to assess risk that by your own admission are all but useless suggests probation got many of those decisions wrong, the majority of them in fact.

I don't blame probation for this per se, it's on the politicians wanting to appear 'tuff on crime innit' but I also accept some will have abused that power because some always will.

*****

As a VLO I absolutely share these concerns. I’ve got 5 repeat DA perpetrators due out on 2nd September - they are SFOs waiting to happen. Victims have been extremely hard hit with all the chaos over the past 18 months with all the emphasis on reducing the prison population. I’ve never known a worse time.

With the proposals to immediately remove FNOs, there will be further upset, anger, devastation, and disillusionment in the CJS. Victims, quite rightly, expect offenders to serve their punishment in prison when a custodial sentence is passed. They’re often upset enough all ready with the current arrangements where they can be released early, back to their own countries as free men/women. This can include rapists, child abuses and death by dangerous driving. I don’t think the public have any understanding that deported offenders don’t typically serve their punishment/remainder of their sentences in their home country. Changing the legislation to allow immediate deportation is a huge slap in the face for victims, having gone through the stress and upset of a police investigation and court process - all the told that their offender will simply be returned home. I can’t help but feel that this new legislation will leave the door wide open for FNOs to come to this country with the intention of offending, knowing that IF they are caught they’re just likely to be put on a flight home.

The MoJ has completely lost all sight of putting victims at the heart of the CJS.

*****

It has been a some years since I last visited Probation Matters Blogspot. I was a regular contributor back when Probation had been largely privatised, a mistake of such enormity I am surprised noone has ever really been held to account. Some points to touch upon that struck me from reading some of the comments. OASys still an issue. Pay still an issue. Prison overcrowding still an issue. Probation workloads still an issue. Diversity and background of Probation staff still an issue. And so on. It really was better in the past as I remember, particularly protected workloads. There was a time when OASys was imagined as a tool to help probation professionals and not something that consumed an unsustainable and huge amount of time such that it almost became the job itself. 

Regards pay, it looks to me that Probation pay suffered a supercharged level of austerity measure and then some. The political ramping up of tough on crime message, always popular when looking to garner some votes, is now being supercharged by new kids on the block Reform. Other parties will follow and prison population and early release schemes will doubtless increase accordingly. Regards professional diversity, I became a Trainee Probation Officer, a rare male recruit, around the millennium without a first degree just bags of committment and some ability. I was ever grateful for the opportunity and did not disappoint, by my own say I did some very good work in MY local community. Keep on keeping on battling for your profession, it really matters. All the best.

Guest Blog 99

Future victims and a denial of cost cutting

Programmes is in a mess. Absolute turmoil, staff in meltdown, off sick or leaving in their droves nationally. Yet when we talk to our OM colleagues we are either met with a shrug, or indifference. Well, good luck, as shit rolls downwards.

Due to a job evaluation that has taken over two years the highly qualified band 4 officers who deliver sex offender programmes are being ‘re-banded’ to Band 3. Many have decades of experience with this cohort, imparting knowledge and risk assessments to OM colleagues and the courts.

Equally highly qualified Band 3 PSOs (many of whom are educated to Masters level) are taking on the sex offender group work. This is not the job they signed up for, and numerous have the attitude of ‘why should we, for ten grand less?’ Considering the Band 3 has such a low starting salary its now possible to be paid more in an admin level job in local authorities and councils. Now we value admin colleagues but lets face it the stress of dealing with DV perpetrators or those who offend sexually is markedly lower in admin than a PSO in programmes.

Recent VLO banding to Band 4 was of course welcome, but this is even more a kick in the teeth to PSO’s in Programmes who will often spend in excess of over 70 hours face to face with people on probation (BBR totals around 70 hours face to face work). The only PSOs who deal face to face with High Risk sexual and domestically violent offenders in the service are now wondering should they jump ship into Band 4 VLO positions, or head into a Domestic Abuse Safety Officer (DASO) role? But, hang on – they can’t because all band 4 roles are ringfenced for the Band 4 programmes officers being transferred in. Band 3 PSOs are facing a future as Intervention Facilitators, unable to access any other PSO roles in courts, or sentence mangers as they will be second class employees. They will be seen as external candidates for the PQiP route, closing every door internally. All TM roles are being allocated to the Band 4 probation officers being thrown out of the sex offender programmes. Therefore the TM training pathway and interview process for BBR and TSP is being watered down, resulting in the TM’s of the future never having delivered these programmes before telling those highly experienced BBR facilitators how to do their job.

The JES appeal is being appealed by NAPO as it was widely inaccurate and yet radio silence from the Unions to the wider probation service.

Many suspect the handling of this process is reminiscent of a nicely packaged up Interventions service heading for the private sector. Sold off twice – charming. Wonder how the public would react if they knew that highly specialist teams dealing with this cohort are being disbanded ready for another Grayling moment?

In the meantime in many regions of England and Wales there are no programmes being run for sex offenders, Band 3 teams cut in half, hampered in their attempts to offer domestic violence rehabilitation work, long waiting lists building up. What a shambles, again.

Anon

Latest From Napo 237

Here we have selected highlights from the Napo mailout to members on Friday:-  

Programmes and interventions

Many of our members working in Programmes and Interventions will have taken the opportunity to join one of the regular consultative meetings organised by Carole Doherty (National Vice-Chair) and Tania Bassett (National Official) over recent months. Here we have covered the position relating to the plans for the Target Operating Model and delivery of the ‘Next Generation.

In addition to the comprehensive updates that have been made available at these events, your National Executive Committee (NEC) members and elected National Officer Group, receive comprehensive reports of progress on our engagement with senior management. In addition we have also issued regular mail outs to our members, but if you know of a colleague who has not received these please ask them to contact: membership@napo.org.uk to confirm their preferred e-mail address, or to notify us of any change in their personal details.

Background to the current position

As you would expect, the Probation Unions (Napo, UNISON and GMB) take every opportunity to regularly relay the anger and frustration that has been made clear by our respective members directly to senior management. This is via a series of scheduled meetings with the Reducing Reoffending Directorate, but also during our fortnightly engagement with the Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards or HMPPS Executive Directors Amy Rees and Phil Copple.

This update brings you up to speed with the latest position in what has undoubtedly become a difficult and protracted issue; one that is causing massive uncertainty to the workforce, but which also has serious implications for public protection if the plans come to fruition.

Some months ago, Napo were alerted to a number of high-level documents which the employer had mistakenly published on the Intranet. These revealed plans to decimate the Divisional Sex Offender Units and downgrade the work of Facilitators delivering Programmes to Band 3.

Following the understandable level of anger and mistrust that this generated across all three unions, the consultation was paused. Napo, alongside Unison and GMB made it clear that there had been a complete breakdown in trust with the employer and their intentions, and we demanded written assurances before any further discussions could be held. This process took about 2 months with the unions responding to the employer’s submissions during this time. As a result of this, the consultation process has changed and there has also been a change on the employer’s side in who attends these talks.

Our current engagement strategy

Essentially, the unions have two choices before us. One is canvassing members for hard hitting industrial action over a prolonged period to try and shock the Government into changing these plans, but feedback from members so far indicates that we are not yet at this stage.

The second, is to maintain our engagement for as long as we can before entering a National Dispute under the Probation Joint National Council (JNC).

We are now at the stage where we are close to concluding formal consultation over the stated plans on which we regularly brief our political contacts. Once consultation is concluded we will enter into formal negotiations as the proposed changes will clearly impact on terms and conditions if they are enacted.

In addition, Napo has provided regular briefings to the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, and the General Secretary has personally briefed Sir Bob Neil, the Chair of the Justice Select Committee on these seriously dangerous proposals. The Probation Unions will also be invited to give formal evidence to the Justice Committee over the summer, and as you would expect, this will cover a range of issues including the stated direction of travel on Programmes and Interventions which Carole and Tania continue to challenge on a daily basis. As well as this work, we are in regular contact with Labour’s Front Bench Team as they start to build their criminal justice policies for their general election manifesto. If Labour are elected to government, we already know that they will ditch these proposals.

Understandably, some members are asking why we continue to engage on these proposals, but the view of the Officer Group is that it would be a mistake to withdraw from the talks. Firstly, it would allow senior management a clear playing field when we have on numerous occasions, been able to prevent communications being issued or events taking place. Additionally, it would enable management to push through the Job Evaluation exercise on the role of Band 3 and 4 practitioners without our involvement. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

While we maintain pressure on management and make plans to step up our campaigning activities, we also have an obligation to try and find a negotiated solution to the impasse that we are facing, and Napo would be failing its members if it did not explore every possible avenue here.

The next steps

There is no room for doubt that we are in the midst of an attritional campaign, to which there are no easy solutions; but we hope that the foregoing will demonstrate that we are doing all we can in the absence of members willingness (at this moment), to support an industrial strategy. However, the consultation has made some progress and we have already achieved a number of concessions from the employer as a result of our strong position. We will continue to keep members up to date via regular briefings and mail outs to ensure that you remain clear about our position and our approach to future engagement, and that we will make sure that our members voices, views and concerns are clearly heard.

--oo00oo--

Further pause on final VLO Job Description

Members will be aware that the Victim Liaison Officer role job description is currently undergoing consultation and evaluation review as a result of changes made during E3 and changes in legislation and role requirements.

Tania Bassett National Official, Carole Doherty National Vice Chair and a number of VLO staff have met several times to discuss concerns about the JD and JDQ and agree proposed changes.

The current consultation period is due to end on 26th May. However, to allow time to revise the JD and JDQ, as a result of Trade Union and staff feedback, the consultation will be paused. Once the documentation has been amended, the consultation period will recommence for a further 28 days consultation with a provisional start date for 16th June.

Whilst the evaluation process for the VLO JD has been ongoing for a significant length of time and this has had an impact on members, it is important to take the time now to amend the documentation and engage in further consultation to ensure the process is thorough and fair. We believe that we have made really good progress and the employers side has listened to trade unions and VLO members and the JD and JDQ which be much improved as a result of extending this process by another month.

Latest From Napo 236

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.

In light of the survey outcome, we have formally written to the employer, pointing out that the proposals do not command the confidence of the staff who would be needed to deliver them effectively, and represent a real and present danger to public safety.

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.

Management Have The Answers

Hi Jim,

Plenty of food for thought here. I particularly like the one about the NQO becoming an SPO. Like many others, I have had enough and retire in a couple of months. Good luck and best wishes to those remaining.

Director General’s Trade Union Engagement Event (Friday 25thJanuary 2022): Q&A with Amy Rees, Jim Barton, Ian Barrow

WORKLOAD

Q. What is being done to reduce workloads and stress levels for staff other than using trainees thus overloading them or using resources in another team creating stressors there?

As Amy fully acknowledged in the session, there are currently shortfalls in staffing. However, every effort is being made to increase resource levels as quickly as possible. Our trainee probation officers are the future of the organisation and we will protect them whilst offering the best possible learning opportunities. The Prioritising Probation work being led by Kim Thornden-Edwards is actively looking at ways we can rationalise BAU processes and remove or reduce the number of tasks faced by front-line colleagues in the interim. We will report back on this as soon as we can. We are also looking closely at the way we are implementing essential changes within the organisation and we will seek where possible to regulate the rate at which it is delivered in order to reduce pressure. However, we must remain mindful that public protection is our priority and we know that our front-line staff will continue to work hard to deliver this. We understand and are very grateful for the level of dedication they show under huge pressure.

Q. Has a workload measurement tool been formulated and agreed upon for Victim Liaison Officers? Caseloads are excessive - 250 cases are allocated to a full-time VLO. Covering absences/sickness is also expected as part of duty rota.

It is acknowledged that there aren’t sufficient victim liaison officers in the system. The 22/23 target staffing uplift for VLOs will enable us to start moving towards enhancements and or reinforce the delivery of the existing victim contact scheme. With regards to the workload management tool and the inclusion of VLOS, this remains an area for future development; however, we are unable to give you an indication of the timescale for development due to other priority work.

DIVERSITY & EQUALITY

Q. Do you accept that probation is institutionally racist - and that vetting is an example of how not to reflect the communities we serve?

Whilst we must accept that the results of the recent race survey were not all we could have hoped for, action plans are well underway to address many of the issues raised and we take this very seriously. However, as Amy pointed out, in terms of staffing demographic overall, we are slightly ahead of the 14% national target representation for minority ethnic staff. We do accept that there are regional variations that we are working hard to improve upon. Some work is also still required to achieve this level of representation in senior management posts which currently stands at 11%. We also continue to work towards improving the vetting process with the aim that it should normally take no longer than 20 days. However, we must ask you to accept that the vetting process is prescribed and is not one over which we have sole control.

Q. When can we expect staff that have come across from the CRCs have full access to the I.T. apps in the same way previous NPS staff have?

We are not aware of widespread issues with staff being unable to access apps and there is certainly no reason why this should be the case for staff on the DOM1 system.

We have spoken directly to Darren and offered suggestions for him to get what application and shared drive access he needs. He informs us that someone has already also been in touch with him about Cardinus.

Any other union members experiencing difficulties in this regard please contact the ICT Helpdesk via the Technology Portal in the first instance and they can advise. For applications which are not owned by the service such as Cardinus, please discuss with your local Business Manager who should be able to direct you on how to access.

Q. In 2022 is it acceptable to be adding buildings to the estate which are not accessible? e.g. no lifts.

All PS Probation Offices should be designed with a diverse range of users in mind, some of whom may require increased accessibility in order to act independently, safely and with ease. Under the Equality Act 2010, we must also cater for those with accessibility requirements and ensure that all employees have equal access to facilities, services, and premises. Following the onboarding of legacy CRC sites in 2021, we continue to assess the estate and look at improving accessibility in all of our offices through local Facilities Management and wider project initiatives. We are aware of one property where it was not possible to source a suitable alternative premise or install a lift in the probation building. This is an exceptional circumstance and does not reflect our wider policy.

Over the last 2 years we’ve managed to bring huge investment to the estate with us delivering major refurbishments and new acquisitions which now meet our Design Guide principles and within that meet the accessibility requirements.

Following the Spending Review, we are finalising our strategy a further investment over the next 2 years again including major refurbs and new acquisitions to meet the following criteria:

• Assists the region in aligning their estate to the Target Operating Model
• Following the project, the property will be PS Estates Design Guide compliant (meet the accessibility requirements)
• Following the project, the property will effectively support smarter working

We’ll continue to communicate progress and evolution of the Estate and we are already looking into developing the future estates strategies for your Regions beyond the Probation Reform Programme, improving accessibility and security and support future moves to mixed caseloads.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Q. Positive to hear numbers for recruitment and future forecasting. How do we keep staff in the interim? Staff that will be asked to support these new staff in their development​.

Whilst acknowledging that the resource issue has been both long-standing and frustrating, we cannot overstate how much we value our staff who have stuck with it through that challenge. We are very confident that we are now turning the corner on this issue. As was said in the session, there is an unprecedented investment in growing the workforce. Although it may take some more time and effort to get us to the final outcome, we hope our colleagues whom we know genuinely care about the service will see that there is genuine progress and that the leadership are determined to deliver a fully resourced service to the highest standards.

Q. What is the current retention rate at frontline delivery? Themes are clearly coming through that colleagues are leaving, especially very experienced front line staff, understand Pay is a factor, but so are many other things. ​

For 12 months to 30 September 2021, attrition for the Probation Service is 7.7%, which is an increase of 1.1 percentage points from 6.6% for 12 months to 30 June 2021. This figure is lower than the overall HMPPS leaving rate as of 30 September 2021, which is 10.1%.

Nationally, Probation Officer attrition rates are 6.9% for 12 months to September 2021, which is an increase of 1.1 percentage points from 5.8% for 12 months to June 2021.

In April 2021 we published internally the first Probation Service Recruitment and Retention Strategy (2021/2024) which outlines our commitment in 5 key objectives:

• Increasing Probation Officer numbers
• Ensuring workloads are manageable
• Recruiting a diverse workforce
• Increasing recruitment in hard to fill sites
• Attracting and retaining talented people

We are in the process of reviewing this strategy against our year one objectives (2021/2022) and updating as appropriate our year two objectives (2022/2023). To inform this work we are conducting extensive analysis and wide-ranging stakeholder engagement. Our findings and outcomes will be published in the updated Recruitment and Retention Strategy in spring 2022.

We understand the importance of retaining experienced staff in the service. As outlined in the Strategy, our focus has been on addressing recruitment and retention challenges within the Probation Service, in particular within Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) with the highest average Probation Officer vacancy rates. As part of our work, we identified several common drivers of attrition which include, pay and benefits, and lack of career progression. Work is underway to address these:

• A new standardised approach to exit interviews has been introduced. Alongside analysis of the People Survey 2021 results for Probation, this will help identify current drivers of attrition and further inform our work on retention.

• We launched three career pathways for staff approaching retirement, to help encourage them to remain in service as we recognise that they come with a wealth of experience.

• We are engaging with Trade Unions in February on retention proposals for Newly Qualified Probation Officers as part of our work around retention of staff. These proposals aim to retain PQIP’s in qualifying regions, and new recruits to regions for a period of two years.

• Communicated to staff the availability of key worker housing in some areas (discounted rent or shared equity schemes for key workers including frontline probation staff).

• A new retention toolkit is being developed and will be used by regions to address local retention issues.

Q. Can I ask how we balance fair and open competition with the need for experience in a role before becoming a manager? I am aware that there have been recent appointments of NQOs into SPO roles, where for example, they cannot hold a MAPPA case in their own name as an NQO, but as an SPO they will be core panel reps for MAPPA. This does not seem to make sense to me!

There is currently no minimum experience requirement before applying to become an SPO, this means that NQOs can apply through fair and open competition to an advertised position post qualification. Recruitment panels are required to vigorously test the suitability of all candidates through the application and interview process before they are appointed to the role. Including a minimum level of experience such as 2 or 3 years could amount to discrimination and a breach of recruitment principles. It may be possible to include an alternative requirement (such as experience of dealing with high risk cases) which if implemented would require a reformulation of the SPO Job Description.

PAY

Q. What is the point of pay negotiations if the treasury simply veto's any progress? 

Amy Rees acknowledged the frustration that complex pay deals can cause and the delays in paying out what has been agreed. However, she was clear that Treasury do not "veto" pay progress. Rather it is a case of trying to negotiate with trades union colleagues a deal that is realistic and affordable which both sides can work with. Probation Service leaders are looking at innovative ways to structure pay awards in a way that avoids some of the difficulties, such as multi-year pay deals which mean that there is no need to refer back to the Treasury annually with the potential delays that can cause.

SUPPORT

Q. Would it be possible for a training event for SPOs to support with the use of SOP/managing poor performance/attendance management?

As indicated by Ian Barrow during the event, he is happy to look into arranging this. This idea was also favourably regarded by NAPO and Katie Lomas referred to its previous popularity and success.

Q. Are there any plans to increase the levels of support specifically available to young people transitioning over from Youth Offending Teams? Or a programme of work focusing on those between the ages of 18-24? The transition period is a key time for young people, and we face a significant drop in services who are able to assist us and the young people.

We recognise that it is vital to get the transition from youth to adult services right and that working with all Young Adults aged 18-25, gives us a great window of opportunity to reduce the risk of re-offending and harm and help people lead positive, pro-social lives. On 7th February we launch Next Steps – a resource for Youth Justice Services secondees and Probation Practitioners to support the transition process. The next steps are aligned with the principles of good transition and gives practitioners structure to adhere to the Joint National Protocol for transitions, involving partnership agencies and other important people - all key to the Young Adult's successful transition. It is available on EQuiP and can be recorded as a non-statutory intervention. We have also just launched the Probation Service Management of Young Adults policy framework which, once implemented, will support the Probation Service in responding to the distinct needs of this age group.

WELLBEING

Q. Sensible conversations with managers about stress and workload are well and good - but what is expected of managers to RESOLVE that problem? there is nowhere else for work to go!​

As was said earlier, we acknowledge the resourcing issues, but would once again offer reassurance that everything possible is being done through initiatives such as Prioritising Probation to see what tasks we can cut down on or even potentially halt altogether as a way of managing the situation whilst we grow and train the workforce. We expect some results from this fairly soon and we will report back as soon as we get this.

Q. What central planning is involved in delivering messages, new policies, etc? It can feel at times there is a lack of appreciation of the practicality of implementing a new policy that impacts operational staff that are already over-worked and that this is not centralised in terms of timing and priorities​.

All the evidence points to the fact that change was required to make the future Probation Service all it can be. The Probation Reform Programme has been working hard to design, develop and deliver the essential reforms which we believe will in due course have a very positive impact on how the service operates. However, we also acknowledge that in the current operating environment, the volume and rate of change are challenging. We are currently looking actively at the “change load” to assess whether some adjustments to how change is introduced might improve things at a front-line operations level at least in the short term.

The Probation portfolio is being developed at pace to better align and sequence change across the business as well as the change activity work in the prioritising probation initiative.

WORKING FROM HOME

Q. There was a piece of academic research in the most recent probation journal, which looked at remote contact with the SU. The general finding was that outcomes were the same whether the SU was contacted remotely or face to face. For some of us, we have been able to work from home and contact SU's by telephone or CVP Video link. I have done this as a report writer and generally only need one contact to conduct the interview. For me and other colleagues working from home saves over £200.00 a month and saves a two and half hour a day round trip. This improves my quality of life and time with family. It also goes some way to addressing the pay cuts linked to a decade of austerity, The current pay freeze, inflation, higher taxes /cost of living, and effective pay loss over the last ten years. Where possible will those who can and prefer to work from home be allowed to do so.

The last two years have seen exceptional circumstances with people working from home more than they otherwise would. This period has allowed some time to evaluate our working practices. Taking everything into account we now have the smarter working policy which offers elements of both home and office working. This offers a good starting point and staff should review their own work pattern with their line manager to arrive at the best and most effective for each individual.

PQiP

Q. Would welcome a training approach that seeks to develop existing staff not solely focused upon PQiP learners. Online refresher courses on MyLearning are limited in their effectiveness as don't meet all learning styles.

We have transformed our model for learning and development to enable a comprehensive and modernised learning offer that delivers engaging content at the point of need and is accessible to all staff. The new model is evidence-based and adopts blended and flexible methods of learning and development to suit a range of different learning styles.

Managing People Convicted of Sexual Offences was developed specifically for practitioners with a minimum of two years’ experience. More recent learning products have included Prevent e-learning designed for the Probation staff and a new digital learning package on MAPPA. These are examples of us providing easy access to high-quality, practical learning resources that address existing staff concerns and support day-to-day tasks. Over the coming months, our focus turns to the rollout of the recently commissioned safeguarding and domestic abuse learning for all practitioners, in addition to commencing delivery of SEEDS 2 for Managers.

The new resources made available will support staff throughout their careers, with work underway to help ensure that all learning products form part of an overall curriculum of learning for probation staff. Learning for each role in probation is being mapped out to help to provide a more accessible CPD offer for staff, with the current learning offer being split out into mandatory, required, desirable for each role and identifying gaps in the current offer which will inform the strategic learning priorities for probation going forward. We are in the early stages of developing a CPD framework for the probation service and welcome discussion with the unions as this develops.

Latest From Napo 213

Here we have a slightly edited version of the latest Napo mailout:-  

Probation reunification - talks on transfer arrangements already underway

The announcement last week was a huge step forward in restoring the Probation Service but it is not the end of our campaign. Our demands are that we want a world class service:

• With fully unified service provision
• In the public sector and never for profit but out of the civil service and released from prison
• Built on evidence based practice
• Rooted in the local community and partnering with local specialist providers

We have made progress with the first demand but there is work to do on the others. While we re-shape our campaign the announcement on reunification also brings with it other considerations. We have re-set our priorities which we are already taking up with senior HMPPS leaders:

1. Support the C-19 recovery programme in all employers ensuring that members are protected as services move to new exceptional delivery models in response to the changes to lockdown restrictions.
2. Demand a job offer for all CRC staff in the NPS and continue to negotiate the staff transfer and protections agreement which will underpin the transfers in June 2021.
3. Reframe our campaign towards achieving a Probation Service in the public sector and never for profit but out of the civil service and released from prison, built on evidence based practice, and rooted in the local community and partnering with local specialist providers.
4. Demand that the Government address the outstanding issue of the delay in paying the 2020 NPS pay progression and negotiation of the 2020 pay award.

The response from Napo members and our supporters such as academic partners, the TUC, the Labour Party front bench and the GFTU to last week’s announcement has been hugely positive. Nevertheless, the Napo Officers, General Secretary and the Napo team appreciate that there will be some members who feel some uncertainty about their future. Nor do we underestimate the damage done to clients, victims and their families and the profession as a result of the disastrous reforms that were enacted in 2014.

This is why we have made our negotiating objectives very clear and we hope to publish more news soon about the progress we are making on these.

Why all Probation staff should consider joining Napo

Meanwhile, we hope that our members will take every opportunity to engage with non-member colleagues to explain what Napo are trying to do in support of all Probation staff as we move to rebuild the service after years of Government neglect.

Victim Liaison Officers (VLOs)

It’s a fact that VLOs are not talked about as often as other roles within the probation service, yet their role is vitally important.

E3 caused a lot of anger, stress and anxiety for many of our members especially VLOs, being under resourced and under stress from workloads. Even though there were concerns Napo tried to make sure that the E3 job evaluation was conducted fairly and transparently. Despite our efforts VLOs were downgraded within the confines of E3 and even though members worked hard with us on an appeal it was clear that the employer had amended the job description in order to achieve the band 3 outcome.

We secured a commitment that the job evaluation be reviewed for VLOs, especially as for some they will be coming to a point when their protection of pay has ended or is soon to end. This process will be undertaken by the job evaluation team who will consult practitioners and unions on the job description and job description questionnaire (JDQ) before they are submitted to the panel.

Napo are seeking to find out what are the current issues for you as a VLO and what you want to contribute to influence the job evaluation review. If you’re not a VLO, but know someone who is, please alert them about this communication in case they don’t see it. Any non-members can take part by first joining Napo via https://www.napo.org.uk/content/join-us and then getting in touch once they are a member.

London NPS - Respect!

I've recently had sight of what I can only describe as the very worst 'designed' staff newsletter I've ever seen, stretching as it does to an impenetrable 58 pages, including 3 with illustrations on 'Guidance for printer resets'. Sent to all London NPS staff, it contains the following message from the London Divisional Director. All I can say is, London, you have my respect and sympathy - treat yourself this coming weekend if you can. 

London Update 5th of March 2019

About every quarter, I meet with the London NPS management group. Last week's management event was a game of two halves, with very distinct agenda items in the morning and afternoon. 

It started with very emotional and indeed distressing talks from victims, whom we had let down. We let them down by missing their cases, being careless with our letter writing, getting important dates mixed up, being unprofessional in the way we spoke, often unprepared. We have a long way to go to improve our service to victims; to ensure that they can expect to receive a consistently high standard, irrespective of who is responsible for the case. This includes both sides of the business, offender management, and victim contact. Every offender manager should always be asking, who is the victim(s) in this case and have we offered them a service. 

As a contrast, in the afternoon, I invited colleagues from across grades and duties to join the event to present them with Divisional awards. Some of these colleagues have gone on to be nominated for national awards. These groups of staff represent the very best of probation, working under pressure to deliver excellent services. Their names will be published in the next London Calling Spring Edition. 

The day highlighted the very difficult balance I have to achieve, in promoting the good work people do (in very difficult circumstances) and yet being very firm and decisive about poor practice. Often people hear just one or the other. The reality is both good and poor practice exists in London NPS. I would prefer to be highlighting the good practice and using it to promote best practice. My reality is that when bad practice is discovered I must act, recognising that such practice may put victims and the community at risk. Poor performance and misconduct can occur at all grades and roles and is not necessarily just related to front line activities. 

If a manager discovers poor practice, I expect them to complete a dip sample to see if the poor practice is evident in other work. If practice is poor, a performance improvement plan is required, however, if the manager discovers really bad practice, the manager must consider a discipline investigation. It is important to always get advice from an HR caseworker. Each investigation is completed without prejudice and should never predict an outcome. The investigation must consider mitigating circumstances, including workloads, access to training, personal circumstances etc. An option for the author is ‘no case to answer'. 

In cases, when a serious further offence is alleged, the first thing I expect is for a manager to carry out an early look at the case. If the offender is charged, a Serious Further Offence Review will be carried out. The early look is used to examine if there are any significant gaps in practice that need addressing immediately. If it is clear that core tasks were not completed and reasonable steps were not being taken, it is very likely that a disciplinary investigation will be undertaken. Such investigation will consider whether it is a case of misconduct or gross misconduct, including failing to follow instructions from managers. 

We have had occasions when managers are overly optimistic, not wanting to share aspects of poor practice. Independent reviews have later highlighted serious derelictions in duty. As a result, managers who fail to report the full facts leave themselves open to investigation.

When there is an investigation, I want to: 

1) Ensure victims and the public have confidence in us, trusting that we are open and honest about poor practice. 

2) Ensure that those under investigation are supported through the process. 

3) Ensure that investigations and outcomes are fair and proportionate. 

Having shared my views, I want to speak with as many staff as possible about theirs. I am planning a number of staff engagement events shortly. In addition, I am arranging to meet with union representatives to discuss this topic further. I am hoping that they will be able to join me at some events. 

I want people's thoughts on poor performance, poor judgment, lack of oversight, misconduct and gross misconduct, thresholds and how to evidence mitigation. 

This is a difficult message I know, but part of being a top performing division is setting our expectations clearly, helping people achieve them and addressing gaps in practice and behaviour, whether that be poor performance or misconduct. As I stated earlier, the other side to this, is that I will keep giving out local awards to colleagues who represent the best of probation, which I believe to be the majority. 

Kilvinder Vigurs 

London Divisional Director

Latest From Napo 174

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

SO, WILL MINISTERS BE RESIGNING AS WELL?
I have hung back on this weeks Blog post to await the outcome of the Judicial Review in the ‘Worboys’ case, in anticipation of the finger pointing that was bound to follow irrespective of the High Court verdict.

It was of course good to see Secretary of State David Gauke ‘bat for the team’ in pointing out that the NPS recommendation to the Parole Board was against the release of this client. He is also stumping up on the costs for those who took the JR when he chose not to do so himself. Unfortunately the same can’t be said in terms of his disgraceful scapegoating of the Parole Board Chief Executive Nick Hardwick which forced his resignation. Unfortunately, it was also a bit predictable in the wake of previous MoJ responses to embarrassing revelations about the damage that has been caused to the wider criminal justice system.

Once again we see the demise of a hard working and dedicated public servant prepared to speak uncomfortable truths to those in power because of one, albeit serious in the view of the judges, error by a parole board panel. I was heartened to see that one of the victims has criticised the subsequent resignation of Mr Hardwick and has called for questions to be asked about what has really been going on behind the scenes.

I have had a number of members including some VLO’s contact me directly and through my social media links (@ilawrenceL and FB) to say that they were pleased at my defence of their role in the Worboys case, and agreeing that Dame Glenys Stacey had established very early that all victims who had registered with the contact scheme had been advised of the possibility of Worboys being released.

Not that some elements of the media have let a few facts get in the way of a good story of course, with some quite hysterical coverage about how the various agencies have let victims down.

When it comes to letting people down you don’t have to look very far at a succession of ministers starting of course with everyone’s favourite Chris Grayling, who masterminded the demise of a gold standard Probation service, placing half of it into the control of private companies who have, with the exception of a few examples of good practice, been found seriously wanting by a plethora of HMI probation reports.

Letting victims down? Yes, why not ask Nadine Marshall about being let down? Nadine, whose son Conner was brutally murdered by a perpetrator who was in the wrong place at the wrong time because the standards of supervision introduced by a private probation provider were, in her own publicly stated words, just not good enough. Nadine doesn't blame the staff just the system that failed to protect her son. Sadly, its not the only example of a serious offence taking place under an untried and untested operational model and there are many more just like it elsewhere, but I don’t see high level resignations being announced by people who claimed that Transforming Rehabilitation ‘was safe’ or those who won contracts by lying about their ability to deliver whilst continuing to coin it from the taxpayer whilst treating their staff like dirt. You know who you are of course; and yes, we know that you were ‘just following orders’ blah, blah, etc.

Letting victims down? Yes, like those who have experienced sexual offences and who have recently seen more chaos or a collapse of the investigative and prosecution process which in itself is a further highly traumatic ordeal because forensic and data analysis services have been farmed out to private companies by police forces unable to cope because of austerity driven cuts.

Ask the families of the victims of violence in our prisons or those driven to self-harm because of appalling overcrowding, systemic bullying, gang culture and the massive increase in psychoactive substances into the prison estate, or maybe on that on we ought to blame the overworked guard dogs who have failed to bark loudly enough to deter the drones flying in over the prison walls.

We await news of a spate of politicians and other senior CJS leaders honourably falling on their swords because victims have been let down. Sadly I suspect it will be a long wait.

NEC APPROVE CAMPAIGN PLANS ON PAY
Your National Executive Committee met last week and addressed an especially testing agenda. Key amongst the many issues was the latest situation on pay and members can expect a detailed briefing over the course of the next week as to the current position, but here is a brief summary of the issues that were debated.

Firstly we were able to report on the outcome of the meeting that Yvonne Pattison and I had attended with the Rory Stewart a couple of days before. Here we had left the Minister and Martin Beecroft the HMPPS HR Chief in little doubt about the disrespectful and farcical manner in which his department had engaged with the probation unions over 2017-18 pay.

Having been delayed until November 2017 because of Treasury remit clearance, we were told that permission had only been granted to spend 1% in this financial year. However, Mr Spurr and Mr Beecroft initially claimed that all of the money had been spent on incremental progression for staff below their band maxima. The unions challenged this, pointing out the obvious fact that this couldn’t be true if around 25% were at the maxima and so had received nothing.

Its now grim history that in January we were eventually told, in Michael Spurr’s letter that no money was available as the HMPPS had overspent their overall pay budget – in effect probation staff had some of their 1% diverted towards meeting the higher than expected prison pay award.

Where are we now?

The NEC heard how we told Rory Stewart of our serious lack of trust as we await a decision on longer term pay reform and why we needed a ministerial decision to allow us to get things moving.

Your negotiators also reported to the NEC that pay reform is obviously the more significant and bigger prize than a minimal increase in 2017-18. Even prior to TR, pay reform was recognised by all sides as being an issue that would need to be addressed. Shadow negotiations about what this would involve began in late 2015. We were working jointly to build an informed business case for the Treasury, as NPS/MoJ said they recognised the scale of the investment needed, as well as the wider contractual consequences for CRCs. Good progress was being made up to December 2016 when the first SOP failures diverted the NPS pay team towards full- time crisis management.

This was formally acknowledged as a failing by NPS management and in mid-2017, Mr Spurr publicly stated that addressing probation pay reform was a top priority for his department, even ahead of prison pay reform. He also appointed additional staff to lead on this work with us. Some further shadow negotiations took place and again these were positive and productive. In October 2017, we were told a business case had been submitted. However, alarmingly, we were also told that Mr Spurr had now said, because this was such a priority, funding had been found within the HMPPS/MoJ budget for probation reform and therefore all they were asking the Treasury for was permission to spend the money they have set aside.

Market Forces Supplements Amplify the Chaos
At December’s Trade Union Engagement Meeting, Mr Beecroft also explained the extraordinary mess the NPS has generated for itself around paying Market Forces Supplements. These are targeted recruitment and retention payments aimed at specific sites. New starters are recruited at a higher starting salary. Existing staff doing the same work in the same places then have their salaries uplifted to avoid leapfrogging, undermining morale and retention issues cancelling out any gains.

We have been told that Beecroft this requires the HMPPS getting separate permissions to pay MFS to new starters and to existing staff. Napo are still exploring if this is the case elsewhere in the civil service as it isn’t an issue we’ve seen imposed before. We are also still exploring if this was a breach of contract, although it appears that when MFS payments were originally agreed with unions, the requirement to uplift existing staff salaries was not necessarily contractually secured.

This is why we issued the joint circular with UNISON last week asking impacted staff in MFS sites to raise grievances where necessary. Click here to access it.

Pressure Building in CRCs
Meanwhile CRCs are becoming concerned about the lack of progress in the NPS pay reform talks as well, as the weaknesses in the current model are impacting upon their own ability to reward staff and manage recruitment and retention difficulties.

No CRCs have yet sought to formally open up negotiations for unilateral reform of pay structures – because they can’t afford this and will want to respond to the NPS reforms. However, the pressures are mounting, especially in areas like London and the South-East and some northern cities where recruitment and retention is also proving to be very difficult. Competition from the NPS already exists but is being contained by the NPS insisting staff transferring have to start on their band minima (except potentially in MFS sites) but there is anecdotal evidence of more staff opting to work for agencies because of perceived reduced pressure and greater flexibility.

Equality Angles
As we have told the Minister there are evident risks of indirect age discrimination built into the probation pay model. These arguably should have been obvious when the model was agreed with only 1% annual progression contractually guaranteed. This deal was done just before I joined Napo but It is assumed all parties gambled that the 3-4% annual progression promise would be kept. This was before the austerity policies imposed by the Coalition government kicked in during 2010

If negotiations are stalled for a prolonged period then these equalities risks grow and become more expensive to resolve – putting further pressure on the validity of a business case submitted back in 2017 and already strained as inflation rises. The unions will need to decide at what point we should attack focussing on equal pay.

We can't wait forever
The NEC considered a range of campaigning options, and as I said earlier these will be covered in more detail shortly, but broadly here is the direction of travel.

The first proposal is to hold some joint activity (a pay protest day but not industrial action) with the other unions in late April/early May. This would be built around a consultation around a lack of confidence in the NPS senior management to deliver pay reform and involve encouraging members to visit/contact MP’s and invite them to their workplaces. This would then be followed by a day to ‘celebrate Probation’ before the end of the summer recess, which would include a parliamentary lobby and a focus on the need for pay reform.

Another possibility is to hold an indicative ballot to test the water for industrial action given that we have two live AGM motions directing us down this path if necessary. Then there is the question on how and when we move the equality arguments to the centre of the dispute.

Meanwhile we are in discussions with UNISON and GMB SCOOP to explore the formulation of a joint pay claim with the aim of submitting this to all employers. The NEC also agreed to make resources available in support of these activities and that these will of course be monitored by the NEC Finance sub-Committee.

Happy Easter
There is so much going on at the moment so I intend to bring you more news on other important NEC decisions and various parliamentary activities in next weeks blog post. Also look out for a Campaign Special bulletin which is also work in progress. Meanwhile, I hope that all of our members working in the NPS, CRC’s, Probation Service Northern Ireland and Cafcass as well as their families have a restful and enjoyable Easter holiday.

Pick of the Week 42

Just prepare yourself for some harsh comments from those professionals who read this blog. I got them in bucket loads when I did a guest post last year. What got me most about it was the sheer refusal to recognise that my experiences of their "services" might be 100% genuine and the points I made therefore legitimate.

I had 5 probation officers on the outside so the revolving door of them isn't exactly unusual. What probation fails to realise by doing this is that it is so counterproductive to building up any kind of working relationship/trust etc which will definitely have a knock on effect. Then there's the worrying quality of those probation hires. Like prison officers, far too many of them should not be in the job because they are only there because they want to exercise power over people.

Being on licence is, in many ways, infinitely more difficult than being in prison. This is because you live in constant fear of being recalled even if you haven't actually done anything to warrant recall. I clearly remember my last PO threatening to recall me for allegedly breaching a licence condition that she'd actually written, but had completely misinterpreted what it actually said. In other words, I hadn't actually breached the condition, she was the one who tried to make it say something it didn't. One formal complaint to the head of the CRC later and she didn't try that one again.

The best our relationship got was a sort of armed truce. I thoroughly object to people holding me to account who then trample all over my legal rights and fail to do their job properly because that's just hypocritical. There are Probation Instructions, Data Protection etc all of which are useful tools to hold PO's to account so use them if they fail to provide the service they are legally obligated to.

It's also very lonely on licence because you have no idea who may turn on you or who probation may find unsuitable company for you to be hanging out with, so you just tend to avoid people. Unfortunately by the time you're off licence you've pretty much forgotten how to have a social life and the habits under which you live life while on licence stick for quite some time thereafter. And you will still feel your heart jump every time you hear a police siren even if you've done zero to warrant getting arrested. It's not fun.

You can be the most perfect human on the planet and some dipshit PO will still try to find a reason to recall you. I'm a firm believer in that there should be no recall unless you commit another crime and get charged. Any other recall seems to be covering the PO's back on the off chance you may or may not do something. Madness.

You also can't expect any help at all from probation. The lot in my area are beyond useless. They don't even refer people coming out of prison to the local homeless team any more. Everything is just a tick box exercise done over the phone these days. You have to seek out your own help from your local area. There are some charities and groups set up by ex offenders that can help point you to the right places in your area and provide support so seek them out. I wish you well whilst on licence and don't give up. It's tough and lonely but you can get through it.

*****
"dipshit PO" does sound a bit harsh so how about ''not all those that have made a mistake are thick, some, maybe many are going to be more intelligent than you, more articulate (like this chap) more qualified, higher IQ, have a degree, have a better degree, have a higher degree, have two or 3 degrees, maybe a PhD, so be more formally qualified and more intelligent than you will be or ever be with your crappy diploma or worthless social work degree'' or perhaps "dipshit PO" could be accurate after all for this fella. Not all POs are bad of course but I have yet to be impressed frankly. You need a certain higher level of social interpersonality skills.

*****
Good stuff that commands consideration & respect & my thanks go to the Guest, the poster & JB for giving the blogspace. Important views that must be heeded are aired today.

In my last role I requested the recall of numerous cases. On some occasions, after I initially felt it was appropriate due to a set of specific circumstances, the preparation of evidence for management & NOMS' staff made me reconsider & withdraw the request. On those occasions the laborious procedures & paperwork were, dare I say it, "useful". But I never found recall requests an 'easy' process in any respect. I had to justify removing someones liberty, returning them to a prison environment, unravelling a working relationship, undermining stability...

I'd like to think that all of my recall requests that resulted in a return to prison were appropriate, proportionate & necessary; even in the knowledge that three of the numerous people I requested recall for (over several years' in that role) never made it to re-release.

*****
Thanks for your interesting blog and insight into your experience. Unfortunately the problems in our society run deep and offenders are an easy group to blame for all our ills. As a PO I really struggle with the sometimes overwhelming barriers especially for those convicted of sex offences to be allowed to put the past behind and move on.

*****
Articulating these sympathies is one thing and the self statements feeling sorry for themselves. True there are some very odd PO staff who get things disastrously wrong and there are many different types of qualified entrants to the work. The CRCs are a waste of time and cannot be called probation and the multi officer experience is not uncommon. However, ask your selves what of the victims of your awful crime? Selfish personal gratifications aired no sympathy when whatever you were convicted for came to book. No repeal for the victims, no consideration of their needs and although these blogs trigger debate, you don't have a voice before the victims of your type of behaviour. You paid no regard and yet what do really expect?

*****
Writing a guest blog is courageous. Your thoughts and feelings are presented and you open yourself to critique which is an anxiety provoking place to be for many, including myself. I think there are a range of different perspectives which would challenge some aspects of what you have written. However, your perspective is valuable and it highlights many important issues. I applaud your effort. Don't let the boo boys and girls get you down but be open minded to comment. For me it highlights the importance of quality Probation (and Prison) services and thoughtful, well trained professionals who can engage successfully with people such as yourself and others. These are after all complex and emotive matters.

*****
A touch too much support for an offender in SOTP when no one has any clue on the detail of the offence. Sexual Violence Media material or the usual far worse stories. Need some balance here. All this liberal heart pouring without a clue on dangerousness level. Exactly the sort of thing that opens the profession up to critics.

*****
Returning to today's guest blog, it seems that there has been, and probably continues to be, widespread damage as a consequence of SOTP. It could be construed that today's Guest felt SOTP contributed to their feelings of despair: "Towards the end of my participation in SOTP... I reached a point where I felt the only good that could come of my life is through taking my life..." I don't know if that's what was meant, or if it was merely a coincidence of timescales?

However, while Probation has achieved many positives over the years in addressing offending behaviours, it has also - in my view - strayed well beyond the boundaries of its professional abilities when devising & delivering pseudo-therapeutic work. Once again I would lay these charges at the door of interfering career politicians and the ambitious hierarchy in NOMS, who were determined to quantify probation work in order to 'prove' this or that - OASys, SARA, RM2000, SOTP...

The SOTP delivered here has proven to be, at best, ineffectual and at worst, to exacerbate sexual offending. But the interventions of Lucy Faithfull, NSPCC and other specialist agencies have proved more effective. Rather than try to photocopy those interventions, why not leave it to the experts? Similarly with Personality Disorder issues; specialist agencies identifying, diagnosing & treating? Yes. Half-baked probation programmes delivered by people who have had one day's tutor-training from someone who's had one day's train-the trainer training? No. Such self-important amateur fiddling & experimentation is disrespectful, dangerous and has most likely contributed to making matters worse for everyone.

*****
Can I thanks the Guest Blogger for this piece. As someone who has recently left the NPS I recognised alot of what he has written. Being a Probation Officer is a curiously split role. On the one hand (most) Probation Officers come into the job wanting to help the clients towards happier and better lives. On the other hand we have the power to recall them based often on judgement calls which are often no more than very cautious but defensible positions for the MoJ and senior manager masters. To get it right takes wisdom, good judgement and a great deal of ethical practice, as well as an attitude that will occasionally stick two fingers up to the people who employ us.

I think people on licence have an understandable but maybe irrational fear of recall. Anyone serving a sentence in a local prison will see dozens returned on recall and fear the worst for their own releases. But as someone who has worked with those recall cases in a local prison, it was surprising how few were spuriously recalled. But if you are on a wing with them they will tell everyone there that they were recalled for no legitimate reason. "I was only ten minutes late for my curfew" is often, when you get the reports, actually something like "after assaulting a local student and jumping from his bedroom window I had to limp to the hostel and so was ten minutes late for curfew. I don't know why I was bleeding from my head, and just because I refused a drug test I don't why the staff thought I was being verbally aggressive and threatening. I'd only had ten pints and three lines." I must say, I liked virtually all the people I supervised, even those who were the most challenging.

*****
Well done for writing the guest blog, a valuable insight into how you feel about this stuff.
Unfortunately those that defend our UK CRCs don't seem to be able to have the ability to allow the other (the user) to see beyond the confines of their own rather limited views and capabilities. Sure other countries are way ahead in terms of humanity and Norway surely has to be the best. Sending people to hell holes is not in any way going to induce any kind of rehabilitation. Well done again.

*****
Now that NPS London have been empowered to process 3000 (thousand) un-enforced Community Payback Orders on behalf of MTCNovo who knows what that will lead to? This is of course London only. Will the rest of NPS in the regions follow? If so, one can only speculate as to the implications!

*****
Don't quite understand the 3,000 un-enforced MTC UPW orders comment, unless it is referring to the practice in London by PP's not to routinely extend stand alone UPW orders at time of breach, or production on warrant and breach and therefore making the orders unenforceable before the user could possibly be expected to compete.

The sentencing of working service users to long UPW orders without reference to their ability to be able to complete orders, the ridiculous number of closed projects, lack of supervisor cover, the appalling situation where users had absolutely no means of contacting their UPW officers (and even if they could they'd find they were "Ghosts"), PO's spending between 45 and 96 minutes trying to get through to a Control Centre on behalf of their service users- that's if they did not lose the will to live. Or simply the fact that MTC Novo have succeeded in surpassing even the asset stripping, staff sacking super dooper Serco in spectacularly stuffing up the Service.

*****

London traditionally never extended their operating periods for UPW, situation snowballed. Remember telling Helga Swidenbank more than a year ago that the Courts were losing confidence in UPW and OM's were embarrassed extending orders again and again. Oh and forgot another reason for the large numbers, Service users re-offending and Courts sentencing without report, without reference to an up to date MG16 and no Court Officer available.... here's another 60 hours UPW - even though they have 199/200 from 6 months back to do and have never received a warning letter, let alone had enforcement commenced. Or the short custodial sentences that mean they are unable to attend and have to pick up where they left off on release. No one notices because Delius profile number 3 has been set up. The split has meant that we are all working in the dark with no contact with the "other side".

*****

"The only way that I can make sense of, that stands a chance of working, is by establishing a professional rapport and relationship, engaging the individual motivationally, and then, based on thorough and ongoing assessment, collaborative work toward agreed goals. That means a one-to-one relationship with time to be meaningful."

The trouble is the current model sees the practitioner/service user relationship as completely irrelevant to the process. Most supervisees have numerous outside probation officers throughout their sentence and licence which makes it virtually impossible to establish trust and rapport and a good working relationship that just might enable the service user to turn their life around.

Add in the fact that you learn very quickly as a supervisee (under the current regime) to never, ever, ever tell your PO the truth about anything because that will simply get you recalled because of perceived risk, even when there isn't actually any actual raising of risk. And even if you do need help with something, you're never going to get it, so there's no point in even asking, so your situation can get a lot worse because there's zero help and support.

If Sweden can get things right (see Erwin James' latest piece in the Guardian about the Swedish system) and other countries can do a much better job than the UK can at less cost overall even if there may be greater cost up front, one has to wonder why UK politicians are so resistant to doing the right thing that will benefit society much more in both short and long term than the current disastrous mess.

*****
Because it's about the career of the politician, not for the good of society. Demonising those who commit offences is easy pickings for the ambitious MP; planning a long-term strategy that is efficacious & beneficial to society as a whole, e.g. Bevan's NHS, requires a visionary, not the kwikfix of a self-serving psychopath.

*****
In a similar vein, i.e. justice on a hiding to nothing as a result of rank stupidity by the NOMS' self-designated 'elite': Who can remember those days of yore when Probation Areas retained experienced criminal lawyers to prepare & prosecute breaches? This was in the dark ages? Then someone decided that was shit and had the bright idea of getting untrained probation staff to prepare & present their own breaches... and as if by magic the number of contested breaches was manifold, as the number of breaches determined 'not proved' escalated from 'very few' to 'quite a lot'.

Also, remember those pre-historic days when there were Probation Officers based in prisons and they prepared the Parole Reports, and even compiled the full Prison Dossier for submission to the Parole Board? Oh, and then someone thought that was shit as well, and had another bright idea: removing the prison-based POs and introducing warm & fluffy Oral Hearings where externally-based probation staff (qualified and unqualified) - often unable to have any previous contact other than via a pisspoor videolink - were pitted against battle-hardened defence barristers & expert witnesses in an adversarial setting with (more often than not) a Judge chairing the Oral Hearing.

Q: So who is more likely to be able to impress a Judge and win a legal argument in an Oral Hearing? NB: it often didn't help that the Prison Officer at the Oral Hearing simply wanted Prisoner 1234 to be released as they were causing hell on the wing. I don't know, those bloomin' dinosaurs and their old fashioned ways. Pah!!

*****
Crispin Blunt has just been interviewed on Sky news and said...He's spoken to some CRCs in preparation of the interview and been assured that caseloads are pretty much the same as they were prior to the split with probation staff managing caseloads of between 30 and 50. He doesn't recognise reports of probation officers having to manage caseloads of up to 200. Someones not telling the truth.

*****
To be fair to Crispy Runt, he spoke to the CRCs themselves and it is not surprising that they tried to polish that particular turd. They have been trying to do so since day one.

*****
As a PSO my case load is currently 84 which is unworkable.

*****
Victim issues - here's hoping someone at MoJ, Parole Board & office of Victims Commissioner reads this blog.

1. It is simply not appropriate to use probation staff - those who supervise caseloads, cover court duties or work within offices where perpetrators attend for supervision - to act as Victim Liaison Officers.
2. The VLO role should be independent under the gaze of the Victims Commissioner & located within local Police & Crime Commissioners' offices. This would release probation staff to undertake probation duties, and removes them from the risk of conflict of interest, intentional or unintentional bias, or accidental disclosure.
3. The Parole Board should be enabled to commission truly independent professional assessments, e.g. medical reports, psychological assessments. And independent should mean wholly independent, not someone in the employ of the HMPPS or associated with a particular Chambers or law firm.
4. The definition of an eligible 'victim' needs to be clarified.

*****
Please get your facts right before you give advice. To be clear, Victim liaison officers DO NOT see offenders, they have a separate database which is exclusive to VLO staff, they sit in field team offices to give advice and information to Offender Managers, there are no paper files and victim details are protected. VLOs need to access offender information and prison systems so absolutely need to remain in the National Probation Service employ.

*****

The VLO remit is professionally delivered under a national job description the same as PO or any other NPS post. The job is evaluated and graded. The job is specific and does not merge into other roles, the boundaries are not flexible. VLOs never supervise offenders. Conflict of interest is not possible. It is a demanding, professional role which is sometimes dismissed by the arrogant or uninformed. There is a piece of legislation called The Victims Charter and it clearly defines the role of the Victim Liaison Officer in the judicial process.

*****

Falconer refers to the 'relentlessly unfair incarceration under IPP', asserting that many of those safe to release are still in prison, but when an IPP is released, he attacks the Worboy's one as unsafe. I trust the Parole Board more than any politician to reach dispassionate release decisions, a power that once belonged to politicians. Falconer has enough legitimate targets to hit without undermining the Parole Board and jumping on a populist bandwagon about the release of a notorious prisoner.

*****
Yesterday after watching the 9am lead story on sky about probation I thought it would be pretty informative to the public. It was superceded by the justice committee and the Parole Board, Worboys and then Venables in the afternoon. The media, which is really the vehicle that informs public opinion decisions decides what's important. But shouldn't we be more open minded? More challenging of our own opinions? Realise that we are being fed vote winning dogma?

I think Nick Hardwick gave a really good performance yesterday. The worst cases are not always the cases that attract the media's attention. People go to university and dedicate their lives to a cause to serve society. Get your votes somewhere else politicians, preferably from areas that you know something about.

*****
I think you have hit the nail on the head. When I started in Probation, it was essentially left alone by politicians but Michael Howard approached it as would a Daily Mail reader and stared interfering with the approaches being taken. Then Boateng came on board with his Community Rehabilitation and Punishment Orders (CRAPOs - remember them? (actually they never existed)) and it was downhill from there. Since then, the HO, NOMS, MoJ, HMPPS have continued to fool around using ill-informed 'experts', dodgy research, amateurs and 'people who have hunches'. Of course, you are right in saying that the politicians can never admit that they are wrong even if it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. This can be opened up to include the NHS, Armed Forces, Housing etc etc. Add Brexit and Trump and I remain convinced that we are looking at the collapse of the West. In 100 years, the UK will be a tiny outpost of civilisation, much liked the Maldives.

*****
Like Carillon before their demise, Interserve have issued two profit warnings they however have been given till March by the banks to see if they will breach their covenants - I've got to say it's been very quiet on the Interserve need front! Some would say no news is good news however call me cynical! It will be interesting for those of us who are unfortunate enough to work within an Interserve owned CRC to see what further savings they are going to make as part of their "fit for growth" model. 

They are making massive changes to UPW, come April we will no longer have stand alone unpaid work officers in offices as all of this will be done remotely (I think 56 staff have been turned into 14) that will be based in one of intended performance service centres (Cunard in Liverpool) - not sure how this staff are going to cope with court appearances for contested breaches along with the massive amount of cases they will be dealing with - apparently this approach is going to improve unpaid work targets? 

Unpaid work staff are now expected to become generic case mangers, a few have been given "office manager " type roles (previously made redundant so they've changed the job title!). 4 unpaid work mangers are being reduced to 2 - what's next who knows watch this space - oh we also had an agreement with NPS that we take back to court all those orders with outstanding Unpaid work hours or those that were approaching 9/12 mths - they set aside specific cost for us - I think there was around 500 cases - unpaid work or should I say SL10 is a massive target as it means money!

*****
I feel for the inspectors. They have to walk a fine line between telling it as it is, appeasing the tabloids and ministers. Trouble is this leads to the situation being drastically watered down. Probation simply isn't fit for purpose at present which is doing everyone - supervisee, PO and the public a huge disservice. Everyone I know who has been on licence or is still on licence has had multiple probation officers over the course of their sentence and licence. There is no way anyone can build a good working relationship with a service user if they are here today and someone else is there tomorrow. Consistency and trust are key.

Supervising people by telephone, unless you're 100% sure that they aren't going to slip back into bad habits or as is clearly widespread as has been revealed recently - innocent of what they were imprisoned for so are extremely unlikely to commit a crime, is asking for trouble. At the very least the PO/supervisee relationship needs to be built on trust that both sides are going to behave themselves and abide by the law (and yes there are an awful lot of PO's playing fast and loose with their legal obligations under the law or who simply don't understand their legal obligations and can't be bothered to educate themselves on them. You can't seriously expect a supervisee to abide by the law if you're setting a bad example by not adhering to the law).

Instead of a sticking plaster which is probably what will happen, if anything, this is an excellent opportunity to redesign the service from the ground up to make it fit for purpose now and in the long run.

*****
The problem is that you last sentence was the rhetoric that surrounded TR. Look where that got us. For me, the problems are simple. An overemphasis on punishment not rehabilitation. An over reliance on IT and recording. Excessive caseloads and few opportunities to build relationships with offenders and to offer the practical and emotional assistance required. The value of Probation is and always has been the relationship between the practitioner and the offender. Until that relationship is put at the centre of the operating model, it will be all hot air.

*****
"in many CRCs, the case management itself is insufficient to enable good enforcement decisions. Instead, poor supervision is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment." This can only be read as "people are going to prison because of crap supervision by CRCs"? A powerful statement.

*****
"People on licence are more likely to be supervised by higher grade staff" - Really!! Not in my experience, it really doesn't work like that unless there is child protection. Those licence cases would sit with any member of staff regardless of experience - recalls have to be endorsed by a line manager and the manager above them. However, all of that said, you have to know when to go to a manager to discuss a potential recall and as most of us know, some case managers are being left inexperienced to handle high case loads.

*****
Privatising probation was only one part of Graylings Rehabilitation Revolution. He said it would work because it came in conjunction with engagement with the third sector, resettlement prisons, and TTG. None of that has happened, and without the whole package there is no Rehabilitation Revolution, and CRCs remain as the only part of a botched and broken ideologically driven system.

*****
Well, well what a surprise, pretty meaningless of course. I see this as tokenist fodder to make it look like there is some sort of monitoring going on when you and I know its not the case. The only outcome will be to waste more money on even more poor service. How the hell can you have a proper insight if you are not talking to the very people who use the service? Yeah lets ignore them that's a good idea. The very people who know whats going on.

If you come from the standpoint that everyone who has committed an offence must be totally untrustworthy and not to be believed at all under any circumstances, then you will learn sweet FA. Finding excuses to breach someone or winding them up until they break is NOT proper enforcement. 'Dame' Stacey needs to talk to the service users to find out what the real issues are, one of which is very poor, low quality POs in CRCs. They can cause quite a lot of damage with their mishandling and more contact with them only serves to allow them to cause even more. They are especially a waste of time (and space). Add into that very poor courses with very poor presenters where people are lumped in to make a larger invoice, spells tick boxing roller-coaster. Yep just keep on ignoring the service users, that's the solution!

*****
Why are the CRCs 'overstretched'? This judgement lets them off the hook. I don't recall thematics on probation pre-TR ever highlighting lack of resources – even during the austerity years - as being a fundamental issue – yet the first recommendation in the report tells the government to ensure that probation is sufficiently resourced. 

Did the CRCs overstretch themselves in cutting staff numbers and dispensing with many experienced practitioners? Are they overstretched because their operating models are not fit for purpose? 'Poor performance' is becoming synonymous with CRC operations. Two of the recommendations tell the NPS and CRCs to 'jointly develop' partnerships and services - this points to the necessity of integration. 

As any child will tell you, you cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together. A public-private partnership will never work in probation. As it seems doubtful that any government would ever trust the private sector to run the NPS, the only way out of this mess is to return the CRCs to public ownership. It's been tried before and whilst not always perfect, probation was one of the best performing public services that enjoyed the trust and confidence of the judiciary.

*****
"I don't want to pay for a service, I want to pay for results". When asked about the evidence base for the TR revolution, preferred to rely on "Common sense." Stated that the Private sector was best placed to shape the necessary changes to bring about the revolution. Claimed he had achieved what various Justice Ministers had been trying to achieve over the last 30 years, namely support for people on release from short term custodial sentences. Claimed the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors would revitalise through innovation, creativity and efficient use of taxpayers money the hitherto unacceptable and stale performance on rates of reoffending. The only box I am ticking, several years later, is that a revolution has been enacted.

*****
On the face if it, if the government, to celebrate the end of austerity, gave everyone in the UK a chocolate cream cake, it would be seen as a really great goodwill gesture. But for those with diabetes, gluten intolerance or nut allergies, it could be very harmful if not fatal. But that's exactly what they've done by bringing those sentenced to 12mths and under into probation supervision.

I'd like to ask those who shout about how great it is that 40,000 short term sentencees are now subject to supervision  do you really think it's done more good then harm? I suggest that those 40,000 are mostly problematic offenders and their offending behaviour is rooted in alcohol and drug addictions and mental health and social problems. With the best will in the world, probation services are not the agency best suited to deal with those problems. With redundancies, short staffing and a high dependency on agency staff in CRCs it's unlikely that offenders with particular offending patterns will be matched with the supervisor best suited to offer help and support.

Add to that the fear of sanction and recall is a barrier for people seeking help. Even if the offender knows recall is unlikely, the fact that it's possible creates a significant barrier. It also forms a barrier seeking help from other agencies because you can never be sure what, when or with who your information may be shared. For many of those 40,000 that the MoJ boast about 'bringing into the fold', they've just created a revolving door with no exit. The question is, does TR do more harm then good?

*****
This may seem an unusual question to ask as a long serving PO, but, what is the point of OASys? When OASys was first rolled out, we were instructed to write short but relevant notes in 1-13 sections, document a short yet clear risk management plan and a short sentence plan; a document being instructed to be shared with partnership agencies. Even managing a high case load, producing meaningful (as far as was possible) OASys did not prevent me from doing my job as an Offender Manager.

Roll forward to this week. Now, on average, completing a new ISP to meet the newly developed Quality Assurance Standards takes 10+ hours. A colleague said one recently took them over 12 hours. We both have many years service and know how to do an OASys. This is proving to be the norm not the exception.

Reviews to this new standard, Terminations to this new standard, all take our time away from seeing offenders (ex). Many OASys are being rolled back, rejected, no longer meeting this new super duper standard, with requests to do a better job again being the norm rather than the exception. No longer can we share them with partnership agencies. Just who the hell reads them? Add to the fact that each offender needs an ISP, numerous reviews, and a Termination review, all to meet this new Quality Assurance Standard, and it begs the question, what are Oasys about?

Sure, as Officers, we can spend all out days data inputting. But what about the offenders we supervise? How can it make sense that I have to allocate 10+ hours for an ISP, perhaps half that or more for a detailed review etc, and when you multiply these numbers by the 30-40 case loads, cases changing hands time and time again, then I and my colleagues have little or no time for anything else, let alone supporting, supervising and assisting those with are changed with managing.

Am I alone in questioning the validity of Oasys, or any computer task that means Officers have to spend 7.5 hours of an 8 hour day data inputting? How can we help offenders turn their lives around if we don't have time to spend with them? I do know this, 10 hours spent with an offender will have more results in helping that person turn their life around than the same amount of time spent on a computer. Anyone else agree with this, and if so, what can we do about it?

*****
Agree totally as it’s not good for anybody’s health to be sat at a computer for this length of time. Cut backs and procedures without adequate training ie learn as you go results in mistakes which could leave the public at risk. Frustrating times for service users and staff alike. Pro social modelling is hard to deliver when you are treated in such way. Transparency doesn’t exist. As an employer you have a duty of health and safety to your employees. You are not only letting the public and service user down but your staff who are hard dedicated workers who want to do a good job and help service users turn their life around.

*****
Not just PSS, also Community and Suspended sentences not being supervised for months on end by CRC. Pre TR the Mags used to scrutinise engagement with community penalties - not any more. Have they too been told they cannot hinder in court the commercial practice of CRCs?

*****
In London CRC all PSS are assessed as low risk and supervised by Penrose. A “light touch” we’re told to call it. http://www.penrose.org.uk Say no more!

*****
Are they serious! Assessing all PSS as low risk is a criminal act in itself! Ludicrous. Whoever made this decision needs to be hauled before the courts to explain their decision making process and risk management. Ok, some or many could be low risk but definitely not all. What about the DV cases..?