TR Week Eighteen Part 1

Not all senior managers are complicit with TR. There are many vocalising their frustration and concern too.

******
Yes they are! NONE of them are demonstrating anything other than fully complicit behaviour (with the TR agenda) to the staff group NONE OF THEM.

******
I am just someone who believes what I have witnessed with my own eyes and ears. All of the demands are made by Senior Management with no thought for those at the bottom of the food chain, like me. We have been threatened that performance "must improve" ...or what??? They won't get their bonuses (and yes I KNOW they have performance related bonuses).

It is an appalling system and staff are working flat out with no regard, on the part of senior managers, for their well being. It is the senior managers who should exercise the duty of care to staff - not disregarding them and only speaking to those at the top, which is what is implied. They supposedly raise concerns but only with those at the top table - it bloody stinks! Who can check the truth of this? The evidence is overwhelming read the blogs, newsletters and attend a few away days!

******
It saddens me to see a colleague feels so let down by the management team. I can't nor won't try to challenge you on your personal local experiences. However, I would agree with the other anonymous post and strongly challenge the notion that none of the managers are challenging TR. As a manager myself, yes I hold staff to account for the work they are required to do, but do so with consideration of the situation they find themselves in. 

We have missed targets where I assess we did all we could (all things considered) and none of my staff were threatened or left hanging out to dry! I raise the concerns regularly higher up the manager chain and try to keep staff informed. However, let's remember that within our workforce many locations have for years been carrying dead wood. It is these people that we can no longer carry - not that I'm making excuses as many hard working staff are putting their all in and then some!!

******
Where? To whom? I only see the happy flappy smiling faces and blogs and all the b***ocks about innovation. So a quiet word expressing a bit of misgiving doesn't cut it, I'm sorry. We need someone with a bit of courage to say out loud that this really is not working and post share sale it will get extremely bitter and dangerous. Fiddling whilst Rome burns is bang on..worrying about minute process nonsense with no sense of the bigger picture.

*******
I don't speak in defence of the collaborators or, in some cases, the architects of TR but... Presumably They are trapped in a dilemma of their own making; to speak out openly & explicitly as a critic of TR and all it stands for they will have to (1) be prepared not to have a job anymore and/or (2) be prepared to pay the price of any gagging order they signed when taking the shilling.

I can't think of any other reason why rational human beings would persist in believing this omnishambles is anything other than a fucking disaster.

*******
Doesn't look like colleagues PSO up to SPO will be losing jobs in CRC and NPS so I have heard in the pub as there isn't enough to do the work. Looks like terms, job description and pay will.

*******
The Grayling Paradox
Our senior managers are caught in the perfect storm of Grayling's making. Firstly they all embraced TR (well did any single Trust SMT not implement TR processes?), then they either took Grayling's thirty pieces of silver (EVR) and walked away or remained in post. For the majority who remain, they have the dual responsibility for making TR work (thereby sustaining their own careers) and being fully accountable should it unravel (thereby jeopardising their own careers). They, for example, had responsibility and ownership for the staff split. Yet they also would be the ones to have to report to NOMS/MOJ on its implementation. What's in it for them to report upon their own managerial failures? Well, I guess integrity, but perhaps that's why they have lost the hearts and minds of the staff, they are now seen as having none......

******
I feel duty bound to report that, as a Branch Chair, I attended a Testgate meeting with representatives from the MoJ and Cabinet Office. I was present throughout this meeting and can report that the senior managers (inc CEO) present at this meeting made it absolutely clear that this operating model has massive flaws in it and that the current split was causing a huge number of difficulties, particualry in the NPS, which are undermining the CRC in our area. 

NONE of the senior managers present have got VR and all of them are critical of TR, despite having to implement it. There is a lot of talk on here about CEOs and other managers colluding with TR unquestioningly. I can report that this is not always the case and that the MoJ ARE aware of the problems. If they report that everything is going well, they are doing so IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS NOT.

******
As the MoJ are in denial and you report that some CEOs are not, then it would seem they are only expressing their doubts behind closed doors. On the other hand, we do read some of the upbeat stuff that CEO's circulate to their workforces. Are some of these CEO's the same ones who express doubts about 'massive flaws'? 

Given the serious threats posed by TR, is it defensible to say one thing in public and something else in private? If you do say something in public that you don't actually believe and if you become part of the spin in the process, then isn't this a form of collusion, as it enables the MoJ to misrepresent the facts of TR? They may not be colluding with TR 'unquestioningly' but aren't they colluding quiescently?

******
Well said! What are we to believe? Everything I have been involved with from regional union meetings with senior managers present to team meetings with my own line manager, supports the view that senior managers ARE saying very positive "let's make this work" stuff. Their blogs, tweets and newsletters also support this view. If what Anon says is correct, it is really extraordinary? Also I understood the union was asking for information on Testgate. How come a branch chair is attending such meetings?

******
Because my CEO asked me to attend. He also told me not to hold back. I didn't, but didn't need to because he was saying as much as I was. They know. And they know we know that they know. It is Orwellian.

******
Is a Kafkaesque nightmare.

******
Add the Orwellian element as raised earlier (they know we know they know its shit, but they won't admit that its shit or that they know its shit) and the next six months are going to be more bizarre, depressing, distressing and unpleasant than we've ever known.

******
And it's all going to be over the Christmas & New Year period AGAIN - last year we had the selection process going on and we didn't know where we'd end up. What a year - I've aged considerably.

******
Re the role of middle managers. In my area north of England TR is largely being propped up by retired managers being invited back by their mates to supplement their pensions and disappear without any consequences for them after the damage is done.

******
TR is a complete shambles! In my area the accountability game is in full flow, seems that any potential risk escalation is whipped up to NPS no questions asked, even if the PO in CRC doesn't agree with it. We seem to be up-tariffing offenders due to TR because CRC's don't want any potential trouble landing at their door. The days of focusing on the case that sits before you has gone, now we're over-escalating risk in order to cover our backs, with the cases suffering the consequences.

I've heard that CRCs will continue to get paid for cases that transfer to NPS which will make this kind of practice more common. Re the role of middle managers, there are plenty who are against TR and are vocal about it, however they are in the minority. Lots of new managers in my area.

******
Admin in our CRC office moaning cos they have to open cases remotely for other offices miles away - they better get used to it. Although officially based in X you can easily be directed to Y as and when to cover holiday/sickness or whatever (i'd say training but that's v unlikely).

******
PAM (platform for achieving more) is a tool for project management. A) It isn't secure. B) After 5 years, the 12 (twelve) Derbys users who were originally given licences, were so impressed, DLNR decided it might be a good thing to roll out. It's that good! It makes an absolute dogs dinner of anything simple you might want to achieve. It certainly fills your time trying to use the bloomin' thing, if that's what they mean by achieving more. Another useless bit of kit from the purveyors of magic beans.

******
Restorative Justice: All the Police and Crime Commissioners have been given a budget to spend for restorative justice. The Target Operating Model (TOM) for TR highlights how the plan is for PCCs to directly commission CRCs to do RJ for them and the process will be exempt from any bidding or competition - CRCs can just be given the work and get paid for it by PCCs. It doesn't make it clear if this is as well as RJ as part of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements or instead of. Will CRCs be able to get paid twice for one piece of work and if so will they make as many RARs RJ as possible just to make money?

*******
Restorative Justice: where terrified victims get nasty letters from Solicitors when the case is RIC awaiting sentence. If they don't give the scrote who made them go through the courts process by going not guilty, a chance to say s/he is actually really not threatening or devious or manipulative at all. If you have a theory that isn't proven by experimentation and observation, it is WRONG. RJ is just plain WRONG. It has been tried and failed so many times, only fools don't understand it doesn't work often enough to make it viable. They should scrap it (again). It makes probation look bad.

*******
RJ works when no-one is forced and no-one gains only in my opinion as a trained facilitator!

*******
I just love all these (funded), programmes that are springing up all over the place at the moment. Some I believe are great ideas. However, when the programmes are by private companies it all changes. They'll have to sell their services, but for how much? They'll need more I'm sure than the private companies recruiting their services are willing to pay. So, they'll have to take on more offenders at a lower price, or cut staff and quality of service, OR, sell the whole programme to a prime to take it 'in house', and then be subjected to stripping back as with everything else they do to provide their share holders with maximum profits.

That was a massive problem for the work programme, and hundreds of millions of pounds in funding were lost as a consequence - just ask A4e!! Grayling knows this as the PbR model applied to the work programme was his baby. But he still gets paid, so why give f*** if he makes the same mistake again?

******
If you consider all aspects of private sector involvement in probation, there must be a vast amount of legal issues present that do not appear to have been taken into consideration. In fact, it's almost like the legal complications (and liabilities) for private sector involvement in probation work has never been considered past the point of 'can we sell it or can't we'?

******
What is the legal standpoint of private companies if they failed to adequately address someone's risk of re-offending, and they went on to reoffend? Would the victim be able to sue under Tort laws or similar?

Just a query as I'm unsure what to do with myself once I get the sack and might jump into bed with some ambulance chasing lawyers on what could possibly be a new get rich scheme (I'm begin slightly flippant there).

I'm not sure if ANY private company would be too impressed if they kept getting hit with legal action every time there was a new offence? Might even put a few off from bidding if they knew this was just round the corner. What then for Probation.....

******
Staff in Yorks going off sick at an alarming rate. PSR's reaching crisis as CRC officers refusing to do them for the pitiful amount they get for an FDR. I have to say there is a lack of leadership and close to meltdown here. An absolute scandal in terms of how they assist officers with stress. Threaten capabilities and disciplinaries rather than thinking outside the box and giving ideas on how to help front line officers with their caseloads. What are other areas like? I am in the NPS. Senior management are all conspiring with the MOJ in my view. They do not appear to give a flying toss about staff. It's actually easier to go off sick as if you stay behind you still have your head above the parapet and risk the sack if an SFO occurs. Staff on sick come back on reduced caseloads and all sins forgiven due to illness.

*******
In our office in Manchester there are 5 people of sick leave which leaves just 3 NPS staff to cover a very busy inner city office. There are more agency staff than permanent staff. I don't know where all this is going to end. Like I wrote last week, things have got alarmingly worse, 'teething problems' and all that bollocks is nonsense. It is absolutely horrible, my feet feel like they have had concrete poured onto them It's becoming more and more difficult to motivate myself to go to work. It feels like all the services nationwide are now beginning to experience the meltdown that we had from day one.

*******
Sadly you are right. We can see it coming and CEO's doing fuck all to stop it. Won't get agency in here. Rather see staff going off sick. They think they are saving cash and being clever but at the same time they are actually paying full time wages for folks to stay at home in their pj's for 6 months at a time watching Loose women and reruns of fucking Murder she wrote. That is where the problem lies. If you have had a month off your sickness record is as shite as it is, you may as well do the 6 months than come back and make yourself sicker. Can't get the blame for an SFO, cant get put on a capability, can't be disciplined, still the money in the bank at the end of the month. Can't blame them but, sadly I am old school and not in my make up. I feel for you bro!!!

*******
The situation in Northumberland is even worse than Sunderland. Ashington is the CRC office, Blyth is NPS and Hexham, Alnwick and Berwick are shared. It's now taking well over an hour for many clients to travel to appointments and attenders at Blyth are also being labelled in their small communities. From managing Hexham with a PO, part time PSO and part time admin, we now need a CRC PO, an NPS PO, a CRC PSO and an NPS PSO as well as specialist report writers. There are only three rooms. They don't all fit in. Thank you for remembering the impact on admin. They have been treated very badly during the split. The complete and utter chaos and dangerousness created by TR is unimaginable.

Guest Blog 8

To infinity and beyond........................

I have been mulling over in my mind the contents of this second guest blog for a week or so now. I mean it to be an account of life post the Probation Service but it might morph into something else as I progress. I left a month ago after 3 decades plus as a Probation Officer and SPO and took up another job, still in the public sector. I left because I have a strong belief that there are some activities the state should not duck out of in terms of responsibility and pass on to someone else not in the public sector. The sentencing and punishment of those who break its laws being one of them. I do not have anything against the profit motive in its' right place and have worked amicably with Probation Service partners from the private and voluntary sectors over the years.

Neither am I afraid of change. Anyone who was in the Probation Service as long as I had been has to have seen more changes in structure and direction than you can shake a stick at - vigorously. It has been a massive wrench personally but the progression of the TR train and its obvious terminus led me to believe that staying on, for me, was becoming increasingly untenable. As a Probation Officer through and through I knew that the best way to predict future behaviour was to look at what has happened in the past. In terms of privitisation it is not a good ponder. Some wag much wittier than me once said that the bringing together of the Prison Service and the Probation Service in the form of NOMS was like the marriage of an elephant with a ballerina. This dancer decided that the toes had been trodden on enough.

I still keep in contact with some of my former colleagues and staying in touch with the Probation Matters blog means I have a pretty good idea as to what is going on in the world of Probation. I may get to the stage when I no longer check-in but I have not got there yet.

I suspect that I started on the journey of getting my mind in the place it needed to be to decide to leave much sooner than many people. As a union rep my life for months and months was dominated by TR. Spare time in the evenings was taken up with reading -drafts of this and that, with chunks missing, only to be re-drafted again. Meetings with
management often meant being surprised by the latest development and feeling, on occasions, wrong-footed and poorly informed by NAPO. The last straw for me, personally, was when I was automatically assigned to the CRC on the basis of a SPO posting I had taken up a few days prior, at the request of the then SMT.

If I had been allowed to stay in my old post then I would, at least, have had the option of being allowed to state a preference - it matters not what the outcome would have been at that point. For me the insult was to be automatically assigned and then not permitted to lodge either a grievance or an appeal. The statement that so few staff lodged appeals regarding their assignment belies the fact that many would have not been given that option in the first place. Actions like this affect people and resonate - it is not a question of just move on and get on.

I know I am not alone in being treated in this manner by the sifting process yet little was done to protect vulnerable staff. My opinion, for what it is worth, was that the way sifting was carried out with some was a breach of the duty of care Trusts were obliged to show to their employees. Sifting put all the risks and responsibilities on the Trusts and at one stage the Probation Association was obliged to remind the Ministry of Justice that they were not the direct employees of Probation Staff. They should not have bothered and let the Ministry commit even more clangers.

Seeing the writing on the wall so far back I did begin to formulate an exit plan – very much in draft form but the action of beginning to make an investment in my own future and taking some control helped enormously. Coping with TR for me was about wresting some of the steering wheel away from the Ministry of Justice. My suggestion, for what it is worth, is get your own exit plan. You all have the skills to help your clients problem solve in a purposeful and meaningful way. Choices are not always good ones and if at the end you decide to either stay or go at least you have made a decision, not had it foisted upon you. Making your own personal decisions will be liberating, I promise. Decide that your future career is something that has a worth and spend time/money on it.

You don't need me to tell you what you need to do. I took the plunge and found another job. If I can after so many years in the Probation Service I am willing to bet that many more of you have more marketable skills than I do. If you are still tempted to stay get hold of Anthony King's book on the blunders made by government and give it a read. History is not always kind to those politicians who feel they want to make their mark and are driven by ideological reasons to implement change.

Well, how is it some of you may want to know? Strange, new colleagues welcoming and curious, de-skilling, want to know everything about everything and knowing that it will take time - it is hard going from knowing lots about one job to a state of ignorance. It is do-able, however, and some of the skills and knowledge I gained in the Probation Service are coming in useful in my new job.

So do not think being a Probation Officer/Probation Service Officer is the only thing you can do - all of you have skills and abilities that other organisations can put to better use than Grayling and his horrible coterie who are relying on you all to stay put and shut up (eventually and if they ignore you for long enough). And, at least, if you decide to stay put - to piss into the tent, see it as a way of paying off the mortgage - you will have made the decision and no one else. Good luck everyone.

Anon ex-SPO no 2 

MoJ Answers 5

Another helping of non-answers from the MoJ.

30. POs in prison
When will the number of PO's in prison establishments be published?

Further planning is under way to finalise the implementation plan for the new model for probation staff in custody. Our aim is to publish the numbers required in each establishment once that work has been completed.

31. Probation Institute
Why are there currently only 35 members of the probation institute?

I support the creation of an independent probation institute and expect it to attract a high level of membership.  This is an important opportunity to create a centre of excellence for probation, and to support professional development. 

32. EVR

How much money has been allocated for VR?

There is a lot of anger that enhanced redundancy schemes are being targeted at certain areas of staff when enhanced redundancy schemes have never been mentioned before TR in Probation and we are also led to believe that there is the possibility that CRC people will lose their continuity of service when as it seemingly always happens when public sector work goes to private companies, costs are reduced by job cuts.  What can you say to ameliorate this?

As part of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer, agreed with the Trade Unions in January 2014, the Ministry of Justice has agreed to fund an enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme for the period to 31 March 2015. The Scheme has been targeted at corporate services and senior grades as this is where we anticipate a potential oversupply in the number of staff.

The VR scheme is a very good deal for staff and whilst there may be those in untargeted roles who are looking to leave, there continues to be a business need for these roles and the scheme can only be used for where there is a potential oversupply of roles – specifically corporate services and senior grades.  

The National Agreement also includes a series of protections for continuity of service that go beyond what is legally required. Continuity of service for staff in CRCs will not be affected when ownership transfers.

33. Staff skills

I am 10 years post qualification & have substantial experience of working in a female prison with lifers & ISPP and women who sexually offend - I am allocated to a CRC.  In what way will my skills & knowledge be utilised as I no longer work with high risk women?

Employment as a Probation Officer does not limit you to working with a specific group of offenders. Both the NPS and the CRC have complex caseloads to manage that require the experience and professional skills that Probation Officers have developed over time.

34. ICT changes

Why was more planning not put in place regarding the failing IT systems?

It has taken me nearly 50 minutes to access this web chat - the IT systems we use are in my view not fit for purpose e.g.  to save work in EOasys you have to scroll BACK to the top of each of the screen to save data you have completed at the bottom, NDelius insists on my office location – every time I put in an entry.  A real opportunity to improve these systems, so we spend more of our time face to face with offenders, has been missed.

In the Activities Team (CRC) we work with High Risk (NPS) service users - the IT system currently prevents us from reading the records/previous history/risk assessments on people we have never met before. Nor can we record our own contacts/assessments. This is putting both ourselves and the public at risk of harm. How do you explain this?

I do of course appreciate that in any complex reform programme there are challenges as new systems and ways of working bed down. The changes we have made are designed to support the new operational processes and data sharing across the new system. Testing of key systems, including ICT, is well advanced and will continue at every stage, and where issues arise we will deal with them as quickly as possible.

35. Contract signature 

When is the formal date of the TR/CRC split when the private company will take over the CRC?

The contract winners for each Community Rehabilitation Company are expected to be announced by the end of 2014.  We are on track to award and mobilise contracts by 2015. 

36. High Risk allocation

Were the government aware that the high risk Tier 4 cases I held last week are now managed by PSO and Trainee Probation officers in the CRC?

Protecting the public remains our top priority. The NPS manages all cases where there is high risk of harm – not all Tier 4 cases fall into that category. If there is a concern that a case has not been allocated correctly to the CRC, the NPS should liaise with the CRC to address the issue.  I know that all Probation Officers have regular one-to-one supervision with a senior probation officer, where they can raise issues such as obtaining support and guidance regarding any particular case that raises concern.

All CRCs (or Trusts prior to 1 June) had the freedom to postpone transfer of any cases where they considered there may be a risk to the public until they were satisfied it is absolutely safe to do so. 

37. Benchmarking

You mention New Ways of Working (NWOW); this seems dead in the water due to lack of staff.

Benchmarking, which is fundamental to New Ways of Working, remains at the heart of our plans to develop public sector prisons and we are addressing current staffing issues by recruiting 1,700 permanent staff and creating a flexible ‘reserve’ of former staff who have agreed to return on short term contracts to provide additional support where it is needed.

38. Ministerial visits

Do you have any intention of visiting any of the offices to see the damage that you have caused?

Is there a reason Mr Grayling has not visited his local Probation Office in Surrey?

Mr Grayling needs to make unplanned visits to the small Probation offices to see the real impact of TR. Not pre-planned brief visits to head offices. He needs to see his mess on the real shop floor!

My Ministerial colleagues and I, along with senior officials from the MoJ, have been keen to talk to staff all over the country about Transforming Rehabilitation and visited Trusts regularly. These visits have made it very clear to us that we have a highly skilled and experienced probation workforce, carrying out demanding roles for the justice system every day.  

39. Costs/savings

How much savings will TR bring to the public purse?

Could you please explain how much the TR process has cost so far, taking into account redundancy payments, support to bidders, creating dual organisations etc and illustrate how this is value for money for the taxpayer?

Is the TR process actually saving money as it appears to be costing a lot to implement this or is this more of a projected cost-saving exercise over a number of years?

Our proposals will be affordable within the context of the MoJ commitment to deliver annual savings of over £2 billion by the end of 2014/15. We plan to make considerable efficiency savings through the use of competition, the introduction of private and voluntary sector providers, and by consolidating back-office functions within the public sector. These efficiency savings enable us extend provision to this most prolific group. These are very important reforms, and I am clear that the programme will deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

40. Through the Gate

What are the current plans for developing 'through the gate' work as it all appears to have gone quiet, nothing more has been heard recently. Is it going the same way as custody plus?

Through the Gate remains an integral part of Transforming Rehabilitation, which CRCs will take responsibility for post contract signature. Bidders have visited resettlement prisons and consulted with Governors and other stakeholders to develop their Through the Gate offer and we look forward to seeing their proposed solutions.

Postscript - I've been asked to share the donation page for the usual AGM charity swim for the benefit of the Edridge Fund. It can be found here. 

Napo and Judicial Review

I'm pleased to report that Joanna Hughes has received a response to the suggestion put to Napo's leadership at the weekend and it is published here, apparently at their express wish.

Dear Joanna,

Napo and Judicial Review

Thank you for your email over the weekend. Firstly, before responding to the specific points, can we say how pleased we are that you have re-joined Napo and the service after your much publicised resignation. As you will no doubt be aware, one of Napo’s top priorities is retaining, recruiting and training committed, positive branch representatives across all areas following the split. Whilst we are putting considerable energy and resource into doing so, despite NOMS best efforts to interfere and make this difficult, it is helpful to know that experienced activists like yourself can be relied upon to help out in our most challenging period.

Having been asked to respond to you on behalf of the Officers and Officials, it seems clear to us that that you have been misinformed about the actual position with JR and the wider organisational and resource issues that you have raised. Hopefully this reply can offer some clarity as these issues were covered extensively and openly at the NEC last Tuesday, but of course, this may not have filtered through to you clearly or accurately between then and the time that you drafted your e-mail to us.

The first piece of misinformation relates to the headline position on JR. As you are well aware, the legal system is a complex and sensitive area and it is never wise to put into print or expose one’s exact argument or position for the possibility of it being misrepresented by one’s opponents. Nor is it always possible to do so when legal points are balanced around a continually moving landscape, as is the case with our potential challenge to TR. The Officers and General Secretary have issued as much public information as they have been able to since the last AGM and in terms of accountability to members, the NEC have been continually briefed on the JR campaign. However, we can share the following, as we told the NEC last week:

• Napo is still considering submitting a Judicial Review against the proposed share sale.

• Our challenge would be based around legal arguments that the Secretary of State has not adequately assessed the risk of exchanging contracts when the service is not yet stable following the split. This failure to recognise and satisfy his own promise that he ‘would not proceed to share sale unless it was safe to do so’ therefore generates a continuing serious risk to public safety.

• Napo’s success if we were to secure a JR would be around the failure by the Secretary of State to demonstrate adequate consideration and assessment of the risk to public safety and the service’s sustainability – highlighted by a refusal to share with stakeholders findings from the various “Testgate” stages within the project.

• The timing and nature of any challenge will be dictated by NOMS response to our legal requests - hence we are not able to make a final decision on whether or not to seek JR at this exact point.

Therefore, no-one is dragging their heels except NOMS, by refusing to share information about its own test results. However, it would be extremely counter -intuitive to launch a JR attempt just because it feels right to do so, until we hear from the solicitors and highly reputable QC’s to whom we are paying serious money, to provide expert advice; and it would be hugely irresponsible not to follow it. The timing of a decision is always the most difficult call to make, but suffice to say that had we gone for JR earlier this year as we were being exhorted to from some quarters, we are clear that this attempt would have failed.

Costs

In relation to legal fees, you have mentioned estimates in the email and also via social media references which also appear to reflect a complete misunderstanding of the situation. It is correct we could apply for (though not be 100% guaranteed to get) a protected status limiting the costs we’d have to pay to the other side should we lose – estimated to be around £75,000. However, we’d also have to pay our legal costs on top of this. As you point out, a quick brainstorming session with a solicitor can cost about £5,000. Napo have had many such conversations to date with Slater and Gordon and two eminent QC’s and Edward Cooper has attended every NEC this year to carefully explain the process and the risks involved. Our planning strategy has involved Officers and Officials and it was no surprise to the NEC when they heard that Napo has spent a fair sum already in pursuing the three distinct avenues that we have previously reported to members on several occasions.

Clearly, you would not expect us to publicly provide a figure that could identify the total financial risk to Napo but to put this into perspective, you are looking at around ¼ of Napo’s reserves at a critical time for the union when we are under an unprecedented attack. We also need to take account of the fact that large numbers of members have quit the service. This is why we have embarked on the ‘Napo sticking together’ campaign which we are sure you will be promoting amongst local members, and this will require additional resources.

We continue to seek support from Unison and GMB towards legal costs but they will also only commit members’ money if they think there are reasonable chances of success. Of course a joint action could also jeopardise any protected limitation on meeting the other sides’ costs if we lost – a judge is unlikely to empathise with the big union’s financial position. All this highlights how we can only reasonably take a case if we have a reasonable prospect of winning and we must be guided by the legal advice we’re paying for in this regard as to how, when or if we do so. We believe that this represents sound leadership and good judgement and is in accord with the wishes of the vast majority of Napo members.

Seeking a second opinion

This leads us to your statements regarding Xxxxx Xxxxxxx. Dean has had some conversations with Xxxxxx (for free) in the last few weeks and again yesterday. As you are aware, Xxxxxx is a former colleague of Edward Coopers’ at RJW and we know that both hold each other in the highest professional regard. Xxxxxx has also expressed confidence in Helen Mountfield QC our retained Counsel. Therefore, he would be as surprised as we would be if, following those conversations, a previously unthought-of solution were to emerge from a brainstorming exercise such as the one that you have suggested. Indeed, after a long chat over the phone in August, Xxxxxx and Dean concluded that pretty much all the most likely options had been explored and he would be unlikely to disagree with Edward or Helen’s assessments, especially as they’ve worked together and think along similar lines.

We state this to hopefully reassure you, and anyone that you share this correspondence with that Napo would not hesitate to put reasonable resources into exploring any option that had promise – as shown by our response to your suggestion that we speak with Xxxxxx back in August. But we must also explain why we cannot waste time, energy and resources, when we’re fighting on so many fronts. Whilst we appreciate that your efforts are well meaning, your suggestion that you and Dean meet with a solicitor in hope rather than expectation is impractical and, as we are sure that you will appreciate, is outside your remit as you are not an elected National Officer. This is not personal against you, but we would have to treat every similar request from any member with the same respectful consideration and caution and the National Officers and General Secretary bear responsibility for policy in this respect.

The future of Napo

You also mention the need to maintain hope, and we appreciate that as a long standing trade unionist, you like all of us here recognise the value of unity in maintaining hope. While we are sure that it was never your intention, the two statements that you have made about ‘our hesitation’ on rushing into JR being ‘down to a need to save money for redundancies’ and to ‘pursue a merger with another union are unhelpful as well as inaccurate.

As was clearly stated to the NEC last week, Napo is determined to do everything we can to survive this attack on members and continue to operate as a politically independent, professional voice for the Probation and Family Court services. We are not currently exploring mergers with anyone. We have, as any organisation should, reviewed our medium and longer-term strategy – work that never stops. Our initial view, re-enforced by the TR experience, is that a small union that is closer to its members with accessible and democratically accountable structures, and which can present its industrial concerns through a professional perspective, will continue to be more effective than becoming part of one of the big, politically affiliated union “empires”.

Nor are we looking to lose our staff. As was also reported to the NEC, Napo is embarking on a review of roles in partnership with Napo Staff and their trade union representatives.The aim is to ensure that all Napo staff are working together in as focused and efficient a way as possible so as to achieve a maximum return for members. Again, any credible organisation would periodically review how it operates but it is critical when we’re facing so much uncertainty that unfounded rumours cannot be allowed to undermine this exercise.

However, in the spirit of openness and honesty which is part of Napo’s culture we recognise that we need to look at where we are and where we want to be. We are not yet in trouble but, if members’ lose sight of the value of Napo; if local representation can’t be maintained; if a message of hope is deliberately undermined by others for narrow political gain; or if those responsible for leading lose their nerve and waste what reserves and resources we have in panic - then very quickly we will be in dire straits.The tragedy then is that Napo would have lost the chance to make its own choices and control its own destiny.

Leadership

In short, the leadership of the union are, despite all of the other pressures and the systemic assault being waged on us by the MoJ /NOMS establishment, taking their responsibility to protect and develop the long term future of the union seriously. We are doing so positively. We will not duck from any difficult questions and we will continue to do so openly, honestly, and as ever, in consultation with members and their elected representatives across one of the most diverse and democratic unions in the UK.

You mention a threat of a vote of “No confidence” in the union’s leadership at the AGM. Given Napo’s fairly recent history and the challenges we are now facing, then such a move would indeed be “a public relations gift for our enemies”. If members decide that a debate of this nature should occur at the AGM then we have absolutely no doubt that the leadership group will be robustly signalling their full confidence in the General Secretary.

The Officers and Officials have been hugely impressed at how well organised, motivated and committed our members and reps are across the country. It has also been remarkable how people have remained active, determined and positive despite the obvious professional distress caused by the damaging split to facilitate a dogmatically driven privatisation. This positivity was never more clearly highlighted than in the recent parliamentary lobby - union’s ten times our size would have been proud of the numbers there. That was not the scene of a desperate disengaged membership, and whilst we are never complacent we are not picking up examples of the disaffection that you claim is out there amongst the wider membership. Napo has a strong record over more than a century of representing every member and not just the few; this is because we have a tradition of respect and listening to each other.

The Napo leadership will continue to take energy from examples like this and hopefully continue to get a message of hope through to the frontline. Whilst these are hugely challenging and difficult times there is still a lot to be hopeful about and to fight for; TR isn’t a done deal and NOMS still can’t answer basic challenges around the future sustainability of the NPS let alone the CRCs. This remains the position as we enter these critical months of the battle.

Fairness and accountability

We are given to understand that your email has been posted on an anonymous social media site; unfortunately this was before Napo received it or was at least in a position to be able to respond. Given the factual inaccuracies that we have tried to answer above and the potential capacity for these exchanges to be misrepresented, we can only ask that you consider submitting this reply for publication elsewhere. In doing so we believe that you would demonstrate the value that I know you personally place on fairness and accountability, which are two of the most important values held by Napo members everywhere.

Meanwhile thank you once again for sharing your thoughts with us and for your continuing support for the campaign.

Yours sincerely,

Yvonne Pattison
National Vice-Chair

Dean Rogers
Assistant General Secretary, Napo

Obviously readers and particularly Napo members will probably want to comment on the above and will no doubt be drawing their own conclusions as to the reasoning, judgements and veracity contained therein. Unusually for me, I thought I'd kick things off with some observations. 

I'm told Joanna's email sent Napo HQ into a panic of feverish activity, but the response has been both speedy and very carefully crafted, no doubt with a view to widespread publication. In fact, having in mind we were informed by Katie Lomas via Facebook last week that members would be updated on the position regarding TR 'next week', it seems as if Joanna's intervention has rather handily flushed out a rather more fulsome explanation than might have otherwise been expected.

In essence the message Napo HQ wish to convey is 'trust us - everything possible is being done on the JR and TR front'. At the end of the day, members journeying to sample the delights of Scarborough next week must decide if they are reassured by what they read, or not? My understanding is that there are indeed other angles that could be explored for a possible legal challenge and any legal challenge will throw a spanner in the contract awarding process. 

Despite Joanna leaping in with absolutely no authority or mandate, and by the way she has not 'rejoined the service', people must decide if her suggestion has legs and if the offer from this lawyer is worth a punt of £5,000? If so, then members know which direction the wind is blowing from Napo HQ and they can start drafting an Emergency Motion now.

On the other hand, if members are happy that things seem to be progressing nicely with JR, they can settle down at Scarborough and devote their time and energy to debating the motions contained in the Order Paper. 

Finally, and as an aside. I think the continued refusal to publicly acknowledge this blog site is beginning to make Napo HQ look a tad ridiculous:-

"We are given to understand that your email has been posted on an anonymous social media site"   

especially when I can't help but notice that it will in all probability have added another half million hits by the middle of October. That's an astonishing degree of interest and involvement from mostly committed Napo members in just over four months!   

TR - Shakespearean Tragedy or Comedy?

The following is a letter to the press by Margaret Locklan:-

I am a retired Probation Officer, watching the systematic destruction of one of the most successful and highly respected public organisations, recognised as very good, excellent or, in the case of Northumbria Probation Trust, where I worked - outstanding. Indeed, the National Probation Service was the first ever public sector organisation to be awarded the British Quality Foundation's Gold Medal for 'Excellence'. 

Tragically the Government has split this effective and award winning Service, with over 100 years experience, in two, with one third remaining as a government department, but now within the Civil Service (National Probation Service), working with high and very high risk offenders, while the remaining two thirds are in the process of being sold to private companies which are being called CRC's (Community Rehabilitation Companies), who will manage medium and low risk, and motivated by profit, on a Payments by Results basis, now I believe changed to Fee for Service.

Chris Grayling, Justice Minister, has chanted a mantra for the last 2 years, about the urgent need to reform the Probation Service as a result of the 'failure' of the Service to reduce crime (which is incorrect), because of the high rate of recidivism of unsupervised offenders who had served less than 12 months, refusing blindly to acknowledge that the Probation Trusts have previously asked the government to allow them to do this, and indeed had set up pilot schemes around the country. Probation Trusts approached the Ministry of Justice last year, indicating their willingness to undertake this area of work but were told that this would not be pursued, without offering any reason. Chris Grayling has since pushed through Parliament the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, in March this year.

The Service is now in a shambolic state, described as a 'train crash', with staff who have had a long experience of working with high risk cases, now shunted into CRC's through the most flimsy and peculiar of allocation processes, and are not allowed to supervise high risk cases, write pre-sentence reports, or assess risk. Although they will supervise these cases, risk assessments on them will be done by the NPS, assessing cases with which they are not familiar. Domestic violence perpetrators, in the past, most assessed as high risk and supervised by specialist trained staff, are now allocated to CRC's, potentially eventually being supervised by inexperienced and unqualified staff, placing their partners/victims at increased risk. 

As a result of  the new complex bureaucratic processes between NPS and CRC's of case allocation, apparently now taking hours, rather than minutes as previously, there are 2000 unallocated and unsupervised cases, and staff are finding themselves working in the dark with some cases which have not been assessed.

New IT systems are not working, court and prison reports and contact records are being deleted after the 'Save' button is pressed. Staff are - quote - 'running around like headless chickens' supervising 70 plus cases, where they once would have had around 30, enabling them to provide supervision of proven value.

1000 vacancies are being advertised, but long serving and experienced CRC officers are not allowed to transfer back to the NPS (National Probation Service). There is a reluctance from other public services which have worked alongside Probation to share information and manage risk, to divulge confidential information to private companies, and courts are complaining about the poor quality of Pre-Sentence Reports, written by unqualified, unskilled staff. 

Staff are demoralised, and the majority have indicated that they are looking for other jobs, forced out of a job that they took great pride in. There has also been two Probation Officer suicides, and an Officer sexually assaulted by a high risk offender, released from prison with records gone missing, which would have warned the Officer. And appreciation must be given to the highly skilled admin staff, who have always had a complex job, far more than the average office clerk, unravelling IT issues, working to hard deadlines, being on the front line to answer the phone and deal with reporting offenders, and calming agitated PO's, desperate to meet deadlines - even then! How must they be feeling now, with less job security than PO's have and even more complicated and error ridden systems? 

Chris Grayling, of course, denies all this, claiming that the IT system works perfectly well, allocation of cases has been done appropriately and most staff are happy, with 'reforms bedding in well' and teams 'making good progress'. What staff are telling me, and what I read in the 'On Probation Blog' and 'Probation Twitter', is totally different, as identified in the previous paragraph. The 'Blog' is updated daily in detail by desperate, demoralised, exhausted staff, around the country, giving unbelievable examples of the recklessness and dangerousness of Grayling's decision, stuck in a situation where the two sides of Probation are not allowed to discuss cases, or see the others' records, which is essential to good risk management.

One well-respected and experienced  PO, Joanna Hughes, who left the Service in June, rather than work under this new regime, has been battling to raise the reality of the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda in Parliament and has sought legal advice and support to enable her to challenge the Ministry of Justice before the bidding process leads to the sell-off of two-thirds of the Service to profit based companies, rather than the respected not-for-profit organisation where staff gained personal satisfaction in enabling offenders to change their lives and by this, protecting the public.

Some companies, like G4S and Serco, have made a shambles of previous responsibilities- losing offenders en route from court to prison, not managing the tagging system properly, sometimes not tagging people for weeks, and going to the wrong address, with the wrong name. I have personal experience of trying to sort this out with G4S when I worked as an Officer in the north-east, when concerned offenders would be phoning the office to say that G4S had not turned up to fit their tag, and were afraid to leave the house in case they were breached. 

And then there was the chaos over the preparation for the Olympic Games, when David Cameron had to call in the Army. More serious was the £30 million pound fraud conviction, when the government was overcharged for tagging and transporting people who did not exist, using the names of deceased or in custody. And yet, they are allowed to bid to have the responsibility for public safety on a huge scale, albeit on a reduced scale. 

It is appearing that more ethical voluntary organisations and charities, who have experience of working with offenders, cannot afford to bid against these multinational companies, who have little such experience, yet are also making inroads into prison management, resulting in staff cutbacks, increased violence and deaths. HMP Northumberland is run by what was a French catering company, Sodexo, and in spite of government denials, has become a dangerous place to be. I have been there many a time a few years ago, and always found a very relaxed and laid back atmosphere among staff and offenders. So it can be done, with the right discipline.

Chris Grayling has been accused of misleading Parliament over 5 issues -

1) reoffending rates increasing - not true - in 2013 a NOMS report (National Offender Management Service - a government arm) noted they have been steadily reducing in 10 of 15 Probation Trusts, with better than predicted results mainly in the north of England and London. 5 Trusts in the south have increased offending rates. The only element of increased offending rates is among those with under 12 months sentences who are NOT supervised by Probation, although this was recognised by Probation with the government rejecting their attempts to address this.

2) the lack of supervision of those serving under 12 months - stating that the Probation Service could not provide a viable plan - not true - as identified above

3) reasons for refusal to pilot TR (Transforming Rehabilitation) as 'time would not allow it because of the urgency to tackle that group's reoffending rates' - not true - Vera Baird, Newcastle Police Commissioner has confirmed that these changes will not be happening at any time soon, after a talk with the Minister for Prisons and Rehabilitation, Jeremy Hunt. Yet this is the core of the 2014 Act.

4) the need to make financial savings by privatisation - not true - over £125million has already been spent with £90 million on legal fees and consultants. If they appoint another 1000 officers, as is their intention, exacerbated by qualified staff leaving the Service or seeking to do so,  that will cost a further £30million.

5) indicating that there are wealth of bidders - not true - many have dropped out, unable to compete and Grayling  refuses to identify other bidders  'because it is not in the public interest'- although some bidders are announcing it themselves.

Why are you telling obvious lies, Mr Grayling - lies which can easily be checked?

Furthermore, he has now announced 10 year contracts will be given to the CRC's at a cost of £10 billion of tax-payers money, as compensation, should a future government want to return to the status quo - encouraging inexperienced and unsuitable companies to bid on a win-win situation, no matter how much of a disaster they may be.

He also speaks of 'through the gate' supervision, with prisoners being prepared for release with support both inside and outside prison. The Probation Service have been doing that for years, with PO's working  in prison, and external PO's liaising with prison and Probation staff inside. Officers were responsible for devising a programme during time in prison, and being active and influential in attending prison reviews, indeed chairing those reviews before I retired. So why does this man advertise 'new' ideas which have been effective for years?

And why take long serving experienced officers out of the Service and into the CRC's, to work with medium and low-risk offenders, unable to do risk assessments or write pre-sentence reports, while NPS staff are being burdened by ever increasing caseloads?

And on a smaller but still meaningful issue, staff in Sunderland (I cannot speak for other areas) have had their offices split by the creation of the 2 sectors, creating a situation of confusing lunacy. 

Previously, the 5 offices across the city were responsible for supervising offenders within geographical boundaries of that office, whatever their level of risk.The offices are now separated into 3 CRC offices and one NPS office, with CRC officers having to be squashed into one half of the building with the other half unable to be used, because it belongs to NPS, with the one NPS office heavily occupied. High risk offenders from every corner of Sunderland are having to travel to that one NPS office, miles away from many addresses and so causing what must be an increase in bus travel expenses, and the likelihood of some offenders not bothering to travel the additional miles.

Most worryingly, I have been told by a member of staff, that that office has already been noted by other offenders as where sex offenders and violent offenders are reporting, referring to the office and client group in derogatory terms. Is this a tinderbox for future clashes? In the old system there was no way of offenders identifying what others had been convicted of.

This is all happening with barely a whisper in the media. The Probation Service has never sought, nor had much publicity. Many people do not know what it does; in many ways it is an anachronism, 'working with naughty boys'. Yet the Service has quietly been playing a valuable role in rehabilitating people, and protecting victims through their work in offender supervision, and court, prison and parole reports, (effectively advising on appropriate sentencing, additional supervision requirements and length of sentence (Pre-Sentence Reports), prison release suitability (Parole Reports) and recall (Breach Reports), running appropriate accredited programmes from a few weeks up to 12 months, addressing issues such as substance misuse, illegal driving, anger management, domestic violence, sex offending; and  working with victims, and liaising with Police, Social Services, medical services and mental health, schools, education, training, employment systems, housing, and finance, not to mention Unpaid Work.

They have never gone on strike and are now making themselves visible as they fight for the future of an organisation they valued. Last week they marched in Epsom, where Chris Grayling is the MP, handing out leaflets and talking to people. It has been reported that hundreds of people expressed shock that they had no idea that their MP was having such a devastating impact on the Probation Service.

Last year Probation staff were threatened with serious repercussions if they talked about this devious scheme, and coincidentally there has been nothing on TV news, and virtually nothing in the newspapers about the devastation which will happen if the sale goes ahead in the next few weeks. It will affect offenders, victims, communities and staff, as crime will undoubtedly increase.

I have been looking at references to Probation then and now on the internet, and I would remind the Government and Chris Grayling of a few brief lines in their future proposals for the Service, set out in 2011 -

- 'Decency - we will continue to promote and maintain decency in all we do and improve physical conditions where we can.'

- 'ensuring high performance by supporting people to give their best'

- 'our people culture, where staff are proud of the place they work and motivated to deliver the Department's objectives'.

- 'The Government is committed to greater transparency'.

Where did that go Mr Grayling?

Finally, almost, if you doubt what you are reading, please look up a website report on 'TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION. A FISCAL MOTIVATED APPROACH TO OFFENDER MANAGEMENT' researched and written by Midddlesex University in 2013, where they were expressing precise concerns about exactly those issues which have already arisen, even before bids have been signed. Very well written and thought provoking, acknowledging that it takes specific training and skills to be a Probation Officer, recognising that working with offenders is a slow process, gaining their trust before working with them to enable them to make their own decisions, rather than being told what to do, which is more likely to happen with inexperienced or unqualified staff, which will not work in the long term.

I worked for the Service for 18 years,(having qualified after 2 years at University at the age of 48, with a long  history of further related work) and rarely worked less than 45 hours a week, and often many more, not taking time off in lieu because I was so committed to doing the best I could to encourage change and improve communities. Other officers also often worked longer hours, most enjoying and having a pride in the job, along with the camaraderie of like minded people. People worked at full tilt then, so I can only imagine the madness now.

So please, get onto the ' On Probation Blog' website, read about the tragedy which is developing, and fear for public protection.  Enlighten your friends, neighbours, colleagues, and family, and tackle your MP before the sale goes ahead and destroys an effective and worthy organisation.  Back up our union NAPO, who are struggling with this earthquake.  Back Joanna Hughes, an amazingly committed woman, to save something which was never broken. Make your voice heard to preserve your community and avoid further privatisation of our 'national treasures'.

Margaret Locklan

(to the editors - note - I am aiming to reach a varied readership, and so am sending this to 3 newspapers - 2 national ones and a north east newspaper, where I live - the latter being sent to Letters page and Newsdesk. I hope that at least one publication will print this in its entirety, given the urgent need to inform the public of the forthcoming debacle which will ultimately impact on much of the population, particularly those who are already vulnerable.  And  better again if all 3 do! I am aware that it is much longer than the average letter, and don't know if you would be able to print it alternately as an article. I would very much appreciate your consideration of this. The information is from colleagues I have worked with, quotes from PO's on 'Probation Blog' - a tiny number from the dozens of officers in despair, citing unbelievable situations,  from Government reports and a university research report, as well as my own experience prior to retirement in 2011.)