Guest Blog 47

1 Year-old PSO

Hi Jim,

My name is Xxxxxxxxx I'm 25 from Xxxxxxxx and I'm a PSO working with CRC at Xxxxxxxx Probation. I've currently been in post for 1 year. I came across your blog sometime ago now and I've been checking in ever since. I think it's a fantastic blog and I'm really happy to have found it. It gives me motivation, keeps me informed, plus the comment sections are great as I can hear different things from other officers all over the country.

I graduated in criminology a couple of years ago now and very fortunately found my current employment within 6 months of graduating. Probation is something I had a passion for whilst at university and I've worked hard to fulfil this ambition of mine.

My father has been working for probation for over XX years now and during my final year at university my lecturer was also a VQ assessor and she managed to get me access to a probation office in Xxxxxxx to shadow officers for a couple of days and I based my final year dissertation project on the privatisation of probation.

I like to think I was somewhat informed about the current controversial events surrounding probation such as privatisation prior to applying and had also done a fair bit of work on probation whilst at university. I wasn't as such going in blind and despite what was going on I still was determined to work for the service as this is something I really wanted to do.

Following my graduation I got through to the assessment centre for the first job I applied for which was the PQF with NPS. I unfortunately didn't get this. Shortly after CRC were recruiting in Xxxxxxxxx, so I picked myself up, tried to develop myself further from my first interview experience and really went for it. The next day I got the good news.

I was going in to the CRC as a fresh graduate with experience of doing some voluntary work with youth offending whilst at university and also maintaining a part time job for the last three years whilst doing my studies. I was eager to learn, gain experience and apply my knowledge from my academics and make a difference in people's life and reduce reoffending.

Jim, within 2/3 months of being in post I absolutely had it. I was overwhelmed, pressured, depressed, anxious and just plain felt horrible. I understand I joined during a crazy turbulent period, it was at least three months before the company that I'm under MTCnovo signed the probation contracts for London and Thames Valley. It's been this major transitional phase which is still going on to this day and I've just been dragged from pillar to post. Within 4 months my caseload was growing rapidly, I was even overtaking more experienced officers than me in terms of number of cases! Half way down the line I've reached over 50 cases. I felt sick, lost and my manager at the time was just not supportive at all (my manager at the time could have a whole email just for him).

This job has taken me to different heights and all ranges of emotions. I've been fatigued, coming home and just jumping in bed, at times my heart just pounding whilst in my own home from what I've been through and encountered. I feel as I've had to rush my development with no time to digest anything. Most of the time I'm just forever chasing things and feel as if I don't have a platform to do anything. It's a jungle and your given multiple cases and then off you go. I just can't do it.

MTCnovo are still in process of introducing new ways of working and we are now in cohorts which includes working aged males (26+), women and young adult males (18-25). We've just about completed all our reallocation's of cases to the respective officers which will now be managing them within their cohorts.

I currently have a caseload of 40 plus consisting of xxxxxxxxxx which is growing. I only came back from annual leave and had another x allocated to me, one which I just found out by chance as well.

Jim, I currently reflect over the last year of me being in post and I have worked extremely hard, staying back late, reaching these targets and doing as much as I can. I'm even doing my VQ3 at the moment. But I just simply cannot go any further, I have no job satisfaction and I'm just slowly losing my desire. I have even begun slowly looking at other jobs and even career prospects.

I've been reviewing a lot of things lately and I just cannot go on with the way things are. Yes as your previous bulletins and comments have mentioned, they are making breaches a lot more difficult, there is just no clear vision, I'm sick and tired of going back and fourth with targets, corporate bollocks and then discussions and presentations about probationary practice and caring for the individual which we're just stuck in the middle between these two ends of the spectrum.

I'm just fed up and can't go any further. I'm trying to do as much as I can but it just never ends, we are short staffed and have been for a while now and they are only recruiting now so I don't know if this will make any difference to the workload yet. There's so many things going on with my cases and it's like I can't even be responsive to it due to the madness and then who's the finger pointed at....myself.

Right now I've told myself get on the next probation officer qualification training with NPS, that's my aim for now. That's my long term call, I genuinely want to become qualified and work for NPS which I am interested in the kind of work and cases that they hold. However should this not become available, or I'm not accepted, plus if things are the same with how they are now same time next year, then I am leaving. I'm going to try and give it another year at least. Should I be in the same position and nothing has improved then I'm gone. My health has been compromised, I've worked to the bone, I've been ill as a result, limited support, it just can't go on. It's such a shame as probation is such a unique and amazing profession, but it's just in ruins at the moment. I've been looking at other career choices and I'm just keeping an open mind.

I think the colleagues that I work with are amazing and couldn't be here without their support and guidance. I believe this is the only great thing, the people. We all speak about our feelings and it's great to know you're not alone, your blog also helps with this as it gives me comfort knowing I'm not the only one going through this madness. I sometimes feel isolated with my own issues at work but talking to people, hearing other people's stories, what they have gone through recently, some of the issues they face and your blog definitely helps me and motivates me and let's me know I'm not alone.

Before I close things, the recent post on NAPO aims for 2016 was really encouraging. I've thought about joining on and off and have had discussions with officers who are already a member. I think following from the post and looking at what they are working on I will be joining too.

Anyways Jim, thank you for your work and maintaining your blog. I just wanted to reach out and say my bit in confidence and privately. This is for your information only however if you wish to highlight any extracts please do so without identifying me.

I hope you have a great Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Kind regards,

--oo00oo--

Hi Jim, 

Thank you for your reply, it feels great reaching out. I have no objections towards my piece being published, thank you for taking the time to amend it and keeping me anonymous, it is very much appreciated.

I currently have a DRR report to do for an individuals DRR review at Crown Court however we have not had any drug testing kits for the last month and I've had nothing to test him with, so I look forward to doing this report. I really hope the service can take some responsibility and actually support staff's welfare and provide them with a stage for them to do their jobs.

It's just bit of a circus at the moment and it's like this factory, let's get these orders in, do these 'RARs' swiftly and get them out. No real acknowledgement to other factors in ones life and needs, and the whole situation with breaches and recalls is just something else. In a cohort of xxxxxxxxx we have been told that as a team we are only allowed to do 5 breaches for the month covering the whole of Xxxxxxxx area.

Anyways I'm going to get myself going again, but I'm really passionate with this line of work and have endured so much this last year and find it really frustrating with that's happening, I hear some real horror stories coming out of Xxxxxxxx. It's fortunate that my father works in probation and I can speak to him at home and he understands.

Thank you again for your support Jim and your inspiring blog. I hope you have a great week.

Kind regards,

Questions

From a week or two ago:-

The Justice Select Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into restorative justice. The Committee welcomes views on any aspects of the current and potential use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system.

Does anyone have any update on how the Pre-sentence RJ Pathfinder Programme is going? Pilot areas were to be: Cardiff, Bristol, Truro, Wood Green, Croydon, Manchester, Preston, Lincoln + 2 more. From memory, the pathfinder was going to use volunteers to facilitate restorative justice pre-sentence and then prepare a report (pre sentence) to the Court who will decide on sentencing.

If Probation Officers are to be removed from all Magistrates' Courts (is this what the plan is with E3?) then what is to say that RJ volunteers won't replace PSOs? Would it be beneficial for Probation Institute and/or NAPO to contribute to the Justice Select Committee inquiry making it clear that whilst RJ has it's place it should not replace PSRs?

******
Do you work for the Probation Institute or Napo? I'm sure I read somewhere that the PI was to volunteer a written submission to the committee. The PI and Napo could instead start supporting probation by condemning E3 and its diluting of probation practice. It's time to speak up for the professional role of the qualified probation officer. The problem is the PI is unable to speak against TR and E3, and Napo's "press officer" has gone missing.

Serious Further Offence

From The Herald, Plymouth:-

TWO men have been jailed for life – with a minimum term of 23 years – for the murder of Tanis Bhandari on New Year's Day. Donald Pemberton was found guilty of jointly murdering the 27-year-old builder and injuring four other men. The jury at Plymouth Crown Court appeared to have reached deadlock after deliberating for 13 hours and 55 minutes since they were sent out on Tuesday morning by Mr Justice Nigel Teare.

At 11.34am yesterday he informed the jury of seven women and five men he would accept majority verdicts if they were unable to return a unanimous ones.A little over an hour later they returned to seal Pemberton's fate. He was found guilty on the count of murder, three counts of wounding with intent and one count of actual bodily harm, each with an 11 to 1 majority.

Despite being asked by the judge to remain silent during the verdicts being read out, stifled gasps and crying could be heard from the public gallery, which has remained full for nearly every day of the 16-day trial. Pemberton, aged 21, gave no great reaction as the verdicts were read out. He appeared to look around the court room, place his hands on his hips and behind his back, occasionally rubbing his face with the back of his hands.

Pemberton, of Victoria Road, St Budeaux, and his co-defendant, Ryan Williams, of Haydon Grove, St Budeaux – who pleaded guilty to all five charges on the fourth day of the trial – were brought back to the dock in the afternoon where their respective advocates offered mitigation in their defence. Pemberton, who throughout the trial had been dressed in a dark grey shirt and black tie, had changed into a black and grey sweat-top, while 22-year-old Williams, appeared in a light blue shirt and dark tie.

Paul Dunkels, QC, said his client Ryan Williams had shown “absolute cowardice" in attacking unarmed strangers and was “undoubtedly an immature young man." He said Williams had never set out to kill, but accepted that they did set out to cause serious injury – in itself enough to make him guilty of the offence. He noted their “escalating behaviour" on the way down the hill to Tamerton Foliot green.

He said Williams was “relishing the reaction which their behaviour was achieving, their sense of power over others and the people who backed away. “The final group stood up for themselves as they were entitled to do. It was a situation entirely of Donald Pemberton's and Ryan Williams' making." Mr Dunkels said that Williams wanted to posture with the weapons and verbally abuse those men he had targeted from Facebook. He said it was a “small step" from carrying a knife to using it. He stressed the defendant's age and immaturity but said he had seen the need to plead guilty on the fourth day of the trial.

Mr Dunkels said: “To paraphrase, he said he saw the family and friends of Tanis Bhandari in court and what they were having to go through. He saw their pain and upset. “He then indicated to us that he wanted to be no part of prolonging their ordeal in having to observe the trial. “He realises that the hurt caused goes far wider than just those victims but embraces their families and friends and to some extent his own family. “He understands how much his actions have affected the lives of others.

“He is sorry for what he did that night. He has remorse. He realises that none of that will bring comfort to those grieving. “His actions of January 1 were those of absolute cowardice but he is a young man who, knowing the consequence was a very long time in prison, has shown some courage in taking the decision to plead guilty."

Pemberton's advocate, Martin Meeke, QC, said his client suffered “significant mental health difficulties" and revealed his suicide attempt just four weeks before the incident on the Tamerton Foliot green. Mr Meeke said a psychiatrist who has assessed Pemberton suspected developing schizophrenia, although the court also heard his symptoms may have been caused by his regular mephedrone abuse. The barrister said he still suffered those symptoms even after going to prison and withdrawing from the drug.

Mr Meeke said that Pemberton's suicide attempt had taken place on December 2, and that he was on the lowest possible measure on the Glasgow Coma scale – the measure of a casualty's consciousness. Mr Meeke said it showed it was a “serious attempt".

He speculated that the events of New Year's Day may have had their roots back to 2007 when Pemberton himself was the victim of a street attack. Mr Meeke said his mother had reported that he suffered a fractured cheekbone, but 13-year-old Pemberton did not give evidence against the main offender. The court heard that he nevertheless was branded a “grass" or informer at his school.

Mr Meeke said he had started off confidently at secondary school but underwent a “significant change" after the attack. The barrister said the defendant came to believe that others were “out to get him" and thought that he needed to carry weapons as a result. He added that Pemberton showed empathy for Mr Bhandari's family when he read a statement from her mother. Mr Meeke said: “He observed: 'I have written letters to his mum but ripped them up because I did not want her to feel awkward'."

He added he could not recall the events of the night of the affray in Anstis Street when he had brandished meat cleavers at a group of Polish men, because he had been drinking. But Mr Meeke said that when shown the dramatic CCTV footage Pemberton branded his own behaviour as “disgusting". He could not recall where he had picked up the weapons. Mr Meeke urged Mr Justice Teare to pass a minimum term “so as not to crush utterly the hope in this young man".

Mr Justice Teare described how the two men had confronted the “happy and carefree" group of young men and women who had left The Kings Arms public house shortly after 1.30am. He said there was “no doubt" Pemberton had the axe and Williams had a large kitchen knife and that one of them had a smaller knife.

He said both defendants were in “an aggressive mood", aiming to take the weapons to a confrontation “with someone who had angered Pemberton". The mixture of verbal insults, threats, aggressive behaviour led to Williams getting out the large knife and putting it to the neck of a young man “no doubt causing extreme fear".

Mr Justice Teare told the court Pemberton pulled out the axe and “lunged" at Tanis's group. He added: “One or more of the group reacted with courage by jumping on him, in – as described by one witness – 'a mission' to get the axe off him.

“They succeeded, but Williams joined in and stabbed Tanis Bhandari in the back with the large knife." He said Williams also stabbed Jamie Healy. Sean Cordon was also stabbed in the back and Mr Justice Teare said this could have been by Pemberton, “but I cannot be sure." He said: “The result of this unnecessary and unprovoked action was that Tanis Bhandari lost his life. Jamie Healy suffered very serious injuries. his life was saved by doctors. Fortunately the injuries of Sean Cordon, George Walker and Matthew Daw were less serious." The judge noted the victim impact statements he had received, noting one from Tanis's mother.

He said Tanis died aged just 27, leaving a mother, father, stepfather, grandfather, seven brothers and sisters together with nieces and nephews. He said Tanis was a “much loved member of the community of Tamerton Foliot as the memorial on the green shows." He added: “His unexpected and unnecessary death and what happened on a night of celebration and optimism for the future has changed his family's lives forever."

After passing sentence the two men were led away by the eight dock officers who had remained with them. As they turned towards the door a member of Pemberton's family called out “love you Don, always".

--oo00oo--

From The Herald, Plymouth:-

COULD the murder of Tanis Bhandari have been avoided? That question is now being asked after The Herald learned how his murder Donald Pemberton’s arrest on December 16, 2014 could have seen him returned to prison for failing to comply with his licence. We can today reveal this footage as Pemberton was found guilty of murdering Tanis on New Year's Day.

Following his conviction for assaulting a man on Christmas Eve, 2013, Pemberton was handed a 12 month community order on January 12, 2014. On June 13, he was arrested after he was found to be in possession of a machete in public. As a result, on September 2, 2014, Pemberton was handed a four month jail sentence by district judge Kevin Gray at Plymouth Magistrates’ Court.

He was released from prison after serving two months, but his arrest on December 16 – having been spotted the previous night on CCTV brandishing two meat cleavers in Anstis Street, Stonehouse – saw him interviewed by police. It is believed he was not charged at the time and released on police bail pending further inquiries.

According to court reports seen by The Herald, Pemberton appeared at Plymouth Magistrates Court on January 16, 2015 – just over two week after the murder of Tanis Bhandari. The case, brought by Devon and Cornwall Probation, related to the Anstis Street incident.

The court document states that Pemberton: “being a person under supervision, under section 65 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, failed to comply with a requirement specified in a notice from the Secretary of State in that failed to comply with a licence condition; to be well behaved, not commit any offence and not do anything which could undermine the purpose of your supervision, which is to protect the public, prevent you from reoffending and help you to resettle successfully into the community.”

The matter was adjourned until January 23, 2015 “at request of the prosecution to consider if proceeding”. However, on January 23, the charged was “withdrawn”. Court papers stated that the reason was “at the request of probation.”

The Herald has learned that a Serious Further Offence review has been carried out by the Ministry of Justice to determine the decision-making around Pemberton by the probation service following his arrest on December 16. However, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said the findings of reviews were not made public but that the families of victims were entitled to a summary of the review.

Sources have told The Herald the review has examined decisions made by probation officers at the time of his arrest in mid December. It is understood options that may have been available was Pemberton could have been given a condition, such as an electronic tag, a curfew or returned to prison to complete his four-month sentence.

It is not known whether the Crown Prosecution Service considered approving a charge of affray on December 16 2014 following his arrest, which may have also resulted in him being brought to court.

Latest From Napo 88

Napo’s Operational Plan 2016

Introduction

Please find attached Napo’s Operational Plan for 2016. The draft plan was considered at the November meeting of the NEC and the attached version was approved.

The plan is based on Napo’s ongoing strategic aims and objectives and references resolutions passed at the Eastbourne AGM. It provides a framework for the work of Napo nationally and locally including Napo’s NEC and national committees.

Napo’s work as set out in the 2015 plan is described in the annual report and is not included in this document. The only exception is in relation to employer issues and the following highlights action taken during the past year under that heading:

• An extensive programme of staff development training was initiated
• All staff especially all Admin staff undertook the BACS Direct Debit training

Yours sincerely

IAN LAWRENCE
General Secretary
-----------

Napo's Objectives 2016

Objective 1: Promoting and protecting members' interests

Securing the promotion and protection of members’ interests at work. This objective includes the maintenance of Probation and Cafcass as public sector services, with job security, decent and fair pay, pensions and conditions with national collective bargaining, fair and measurable workloads, equality, health and safety and representation. Ensuring the best use of Napo’s income via sound financial planning, monitoring of budgets and reviewing member services.

Probation

• Continue to expose the disastrous consequences of the privatisation of Probation
• Continue to develop a unifying workloads campaign strategy
• Pursue 2015/16 pay settlement in line with union’s negotiating objectives
• Update the current NNC Job Evaluation Scheme and ensure reps are trained to carry out job evaluation
• Demand proper consultation over new style CRC offices

Cafcass

• Pursue a pay settlement in line with the union’s negotiating objectives

Probation and Cafcass

• Monitor workload issues locally and nationally
• Continue to review and extend member services in line with Napo’s financial planning and procedures
• Supporting the right to privacy and family life

Health and Safety

• Demand for existing statutory rights of safety representatives to be upheld, and for fair and equitable facility time to be granted to safety representatives (AGM Resolution3)

Objective 2: Formulating Professional, Training and Developmental Policies

Promoting the best professional policies, training and development, and qualifications in Probation and Cafcass, based on anti-discriminatory practice and a fundamental commitment to diversity. Providing advice and guidance to members and ensuring regular monitoring and evaluation of policy and practice.

Professional

• Examine the full impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme on training and professional development and practice
• Promote the professional association aspect of Napo
• Promoting and protecting professional standards and qualifications
• Examine the implications of the introduction of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirements
• Continue engagement with the Probation Institute
• Provide responses to NOMS draft Probation Instructions

Training

• Continue to support the work of the Union Learning project in Wales and bid for a new project in England.

Objective 3: Campaigning and Communicating

Maintaining Napo’s high profile in successfully campaigning, promoting and communicating Napo’s policies and values. Organising our campaign against budget cuts and the threat of privatisation in order to maintain the Probation Service and Cafcass as public services, promoting best practice and ensuring sufficient resources are provided to guarantee jobs and service delivery. To work with unions, relevant organisations, MPs, Assembly Members, peers, parliamentary groups and others as appropriate in relation to wider public service campaigns.

Campaigning

• Continue to develop a unifying workloads campaign strategy
• Campaign to end indefinite detention under Immigration Rules via the Family Courts Unions Parliamentary Group (AGM Resolution 2)
• Coordinate work against the Government’s Trade Union Bill with other unions
• Campaign with other groups to revoke the Criminal Courts Cost Charge
• Call on the MoJ to review the Post Sentence Supervision period
• Continue to campaign against the bureaucratic practices as a result of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme and highlight in the media
• Coordinate work against the Government’s ongoing austerity measures with other unions, including the TUC and TUCG
• Continue the fight against the political threat posed by fascist and far right groups

Communication

• Produce new look quarterly larger editions of Napo News, including widening use of the online Napo News site
• Provide regular briefings and statements to parliamentarians and the print and broadcast media; send regular e-bulletins to branches on campaigning issues
• Support and promote the Probation and Family Court Journals, and occasional monographs and improve accessibility
• Continued use of improved Napo website as a primary interface with members, utilise learning and development components, interactive elements such as the forums and continue to increase the use of new technology like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

Objective 4: Building a strong, accessible and inclusive union

Prioritising the organising and recruitment strategy to provide growth in membership representative of all staff in Probation and Cafcass. Promoting structural reform that improves efficiency, democracy and accessibility. Providing trade union education and lifelong learning which empowers members and engenders union activity and organising specialist conferences for members.

Implementing and reviewing progress in relation to policy and action to combat racism, homophobia and heterosexism, sexism, transphobia, ageism, oppression based on religion/beliefs and promoting the social model of disability to combat oppression and discrimination. Promoting full equality and opportunity for all members.

Trade Union Organisation

• Include Professional Associate Members in the quoracy for AGMs (Constitutional Amendment)
• Continue to review the union’s structures
• Maintain and support the National Representation Panel and organise a recruitment process when necessary
• Develop new activists via the new Training Programme

Equal Rights

• Take action against negative changes to disabled members’ reasonable adjustments (AGM Resolution 1)
• Maintain close working relationship with staff associations and support their fight for adequate funding from NOMS
• Plan the next WiN conference
• Continue to ensure that Probation and Cafcass keep equality and diversity at the heart of their structures promoting best practice and policy
• Continue the revision of Napo’s equality policies creating one all encompassing policy in line with the Equalities Act (2010)
• Continue with and review the process of monitoring statistics at AGM
• Review equality training: subject, content and delivery

Training Courses, Seminars, Conferences and Events

• Provide a full range of trade union education/health and safety/union learning/equality and diversity courses which include accredited training
• Organise AGM in Cardiff in October 2016
• Organise specialist conferences and seminars for members in Probation and Cafcass taking account of any review of current arrangements and financial savings
• Enable representation at TUC Congress and the TUC equality conferences
• Ensure that all these events are accessible to all members to enable them to be representative of the diversity of membership

Objective 5: Acting as an effective and responsible employer committed to equal opportunities

Ensuring the maintenance of an efficient and modern Napo head office by promoting equality and trust and supporting and developing staff. Acting as a good equal opportunities employer committed to consultation, negotiation and collective bargaining, valuing diversity and the contribution of staff. Ensuring that the recruitment and selection of staff is based on these same principles.

Improvement where possible of the fabric and environment of Chivalry Road. Using all resources, including information databases and technology, finance and membership services, in the most effective way in support of Napo’s objectives.

• Improve the fabric and environment of Chivalry Road where possible
• Continue the review and update of all Red Book policies
• Deliver Annual Development Review (ADR) process and identified training
• Maintain the work of the Equal Opportunities sub-group
• Hold quarterly staff meetings, monthly administrator and weekly administrator workloads meetings
• Maintain involvement of union shops in employment related issues
• Provide equality and diversity, ADR, Health & Safety, Dignity at Work, and recruitment and selection training to all staff as required
• Continue working to the implemented financial procedures to ensure sound financial planning and regular reviews of budgets
• Continue to update the membership system and data especially in relation to the introduction of Direct Debit
• Continue to keep the website up to date

Help Needed

From the Napo Forum (yes remember that):- 

Well being of staff within probation

I need your views. Please share far and wide. 

I'm really concerned over my own and my colleagues well-being within Probation. it has always been a difficult job but the changes over the last year (and for much of the time prior to that) I believe have had an ever-growing negative impact on individuals and team's well-being, morale and our lives in general.

The nature of our job is one such that we are exposed daily to trauma and aggression. We deal with this numerous times daily and just continue without time for reflection or debrief. Historically only specialist teams have been given clinical supervision however I am interested in what all staff think we need to support us remaining in work and healthy in the workplace. The changes imposed by the government have meant that we have ever increasing case-loads, constant scaremongering from those above us about loss of cash and the need for boxes ticked whilst less and less time is given to the humans we 'manage' and work with day by day. Levels of stress are visible I believe. I see it in my colleagues on a daily basis. Simply pushing the workforce further and harder will not result in positive change for our clients nor for staff.

I know that my own well-being has been impacted and I want there to be positive change in the work place to look after our well-being as well as those we 'manage'. Such an idea fits in with the recent Mindful Nation UK report. I also believe that along with Mind UK we need to be positively talking about mental health and our experiences. I'm, therefore, interested in how we support ourselves and each other in the work place and it is my opinion that the use of formal supervision has become a check-list - have you done this? why haven't you done this? with little regard for staff as human beings. Management and employers need to look at the longer game and invest time and resources on their staff groups to enable us to be a productive and healthy workforce.

Please use the survey below to allow me to gather some opinions on this area. This is purely my own individual research and not linked to any one CRC/NPS. I aim to use this feedback to explore ideas for positive change in the workplace.

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/G6TYPMG

--oo00oo--

From Facebook :-

Thank you all for your help. I have been offered the job within the NPS as a PO and am now left feeling torn due to the possible loss of annual leave, pay and pension! I have heard, from a colleague who has recently joined the NPS in the West Midlands, that she has been given a pay rise, her holiday honoured and her continuity of service upheld! Why is it so different for different people in different places? Surely NAPO should be able to sort something out so it is a fair process for everyone.

******

Hey, have you tried to negotiate a higher starting point with NPS? I know that it's easier to honour annual leave/sick entitlement etc..bit more difficult with pay. I came from CRC to NPS in February but managed to maintain continuity etc...it's a tough decision. If you knew NPS were recruiting again, you could wait to see if they'd offer redundancy in CRC but NPS is due to have a load of newly qual officers in February and more again in May. Perhaps now is the best time to jump ship. Good luck buddy.

******
I was provisionally offered a job in NPS back in Sept, but am still trying to get through vetting!! I've been told once I have accepted a formal offer they will make a 'business case' to try to match my current CRC wage. I can't afford to move if they don't. I've been told I will lose my 11 yr service and leave. But I have been told that I can merge my pension following the move. How can it be that some people have negotiated leave and service but others can't?? Surely if a precedent has been set NAPO should be all over this? I still feel let down after TR at least tackling this would be a step in the right direction?

******
I was told it was a 'no' regarding my annual leave and cont of service and also any increment was refused on the basis that I couldn't be seen to earn more than my colleagues (despite them being allowed to get 8 days more annual leave than me, alongside other benefits!) so it was sadly (with little choice) a 'no thank you' from me!

******
The 15% salary max has been removed in the most recent communication about salary negotiations for 'new' staff. The process appears to be more complicated now as it has to go to LDU head, deputy director, then to a panel at NOMS before being agreed! And it seems to be (although I may be wrong), that it is the willingness of the deputy director for each division that holds the key to the divisional differences in it being agreed.

******

We need some help please. There have been some posts recently about colleagues moving from CRC to NPS and differences nationally in being allowed to negotiate terms. I have contacted NAPO and been told that officially the only element that can be negotiated is wages (up to 15% increase) and we cannot move them on annual leave or retaining continuity of service. I am aware there have been references to colleagues having agreed additional terms since the Feb 2015 cut off and believe NAPO will investigate if we can give examples. 

I realise this may be sensitive so if anyone wants to message us, (Xxxx Xxxx or myself) we can pass any info on in confidence. Please help - this seems to be the only way to get this investigated and moved forward. Thank you.

Napo Response

Again, thanks to the Napo member for forwarding the following which I understand has been sent to all union members in the Dorset, Devon and Cornwall CRC:-

Date 30th November 2015
John Wiseman Probation director DDCRC

Dear John

1. Thank you for your formal letter referencing the Companies’ intentions to change the operating model of the Justice and employability element of what you record as Working Links Group. It has been put to you several times from the Trade Unions side, verbally and in writing, Please identify the actual employer? Employees are entitled to know this information.

2. On what basis of authority has the employer determined that 40% of DDCRC has to be reduced? We require this information to be expressed in whole figures (how many posts) as well as a percentage of the workforce. This will enable us to determine the impact on our membership and how this has been calculated.

3. You must appreciate it is important for us to establish this authority. We take from your first 1. paragraph that effectively it is Working Links and that you are both employed by them and negotiating on their behalf.

4. Given if this is fact, and that you, are effectively engaged on behalf of Working Links, you will need to establish with the trade Unions a clear and defined employer. We need to ensure where your directions from Working Links the company are coming from and are properly understood.

5. Your second paragraph talks of new information yet we have not seen anything in your written communication dated 27 11 15 which provides proper figures or a business case, or which show how reductions are calculated for compulsory dismissals. Nothing to illustrate the employers reasoning, or any issues that will have to be tested.

6. Your letter refers to information you have gathered, including the views of employees, sponsors, internal and external stakeholders. You also mention the ideas and contributions made by employees who attended the workshops in addition to a review of 25 workshops and 35 processes. In order for this consultation to be meaningful we expect copies of these reports and your analysis of the information you have received. We would also expect a report from you on how you see these views affecting your plans and the impact they will have. Whether you intend to rely or not on this feedback we expect to be informed properly and full sight of the content.

7. The Unions position remains clear, we support staff seeking voluntary exit arrangements as avenues to a fair exit. We encourage you to make arrangements for this and canvas all staff. This provides accurate information where gaps could occur and provides choices to help reduce the risks when considering compulsory measures.

8. Your paragraph four to eight offer a lot of description which we have heard several times yet still no appropriate detail from which the Union representatives can draw any factual account or reasoning to demonstrate the 40% percent cuts suggested. You have still not replied to Denice James’ questioning of where this figure is to be taken? DDC or the whole combined region? The WAV fluctuation is not demonstrated to the Unions as a matter of fact. We are surprised that any bidder for a contract would not have been able to consider variations. Incredible, that Working Links, the Company, had not costed into any equation a marginal error or a bigger shift in workloads. How can this basic risk analysis not, have been tested? Who exactly in Working Links the company is responsible in managing this critical error? A flawed bid at the outset? How comfortable might anyone think our members will be feeling upon hearing that it will be them, paying the price with their Jobs. Because, the contractor failed to manage the bid effectively? Working links the Company failed to cost into the process a calculation that protected its workforce? I find it staggering! It has to be asked is this a massive error or a deliberate planned outcome?

9. Your paragraph 9 does not appear to be written by you as the first party? However and in anycase, if compulsory dismissals become the direction, the agreed harmonised redundancy procedure will need to be followed in the DDCRC. In light of the simultaneous process and wider regional negotiations taking place with Napo national official Mike McClelland. We are aware Mike will be making representations on the varying redundancy procedures for the other Justice employment areas. Locally we wait the outcomes of his activities. We continue to share the understanding and support for the voluntary exit activity and we again, seek appropriate early retirements for eligible staff. Something that we have continually asked you to acknowledge. Will you please indicate what you and the Working Links the Company have determined about this option and your formal position?

“The likely reduction in the current and future WAV compared to the WAV information provided by the Ministry of Justice during the Transforming Rehabilitation bidding process; and

• Implementing the proposed Working Links Way which has some elements which may impact on staff, such as the proposed operating model to introduce Hub Operations and an universal delivery infrastructure which could impact some of the current Front Line Operations.“

10. In your bullet point above the Unions are surprised. You are clear about 40% as the figure to cut into what remains of the probation trust. Yet despite this 40% figure, this does not show what percentage of staff has already left. Does the 40% include the long list of voluntary exits or is this an additional number to the percentage gone. We need to see the calculations and the comparative figures against the predicated budget. You offer a percentage without any calculations and therefore do not appear to demonstrate a financial economic reason for the proposal of either precautionary redundancy notice or any compulsory redundancy process. We are concerned that your claim is stated as likely but has not indicated the actual as this currently may well change? What are the facts of this matter please? Where is the business plan? 

11. Napo and Unison take exception to the veiled yet direct threat to frontline staff. You are formally on the record, at no less than three events, making open commitments to the protection of all frontline staff. On the 5th of October at Poole, despite the way it was badly communicated in the guise of a presentation from a projector. Again, in the management meeting on the 5th of November whereby the Unions were invited but not in consultation. Our notes and recollections were that managers expressed an interest to get out while asking how anything might be understood in the absence of the figures. Not just staffing and model but workload predications. More recently in the declining state of industrial relations the tele-conference on the 17th November you made commitment that cuts would not impact on frontline staff and middle management. On the 5th of November the same statement, not to allow any qualified probation officers to exit via voluntary redundancy. The implication of your above second bullet point suggests that your reassurances are therefore not true or genuine? We need to know what you mean in clear written format on the record for us to properly evaluate. What we hope you might actually mean is that where work has ceased to exist or is diminished because of a new operational model that all front line staff will be subject to the protections of our existing redundancy procedures. Within that policy exist reference to appropriate redeployments training and mobility to alternative posts before dismissal. Not to mention equality impact assessment requirements. Importantly, your reasoning for announcing cuts that now include frontline staff is predicated on the word “could” The Unions need to know what you mean by this ambiguity, You have planned the model and therefore you should know what resources you need to implement it and what resource model for staffing you currently have deployed. To propose cuts to frontline staffing you either know now or you do not know? On that basis how can you justify formally, notifying BIS under section 188 of the TULRCA? Under the terms of making cuts to staffing neither of the appropriate grounds have been described or met properly. On my reading you do not appear to satisfy the relevant section in the descriptions you offer. Using terms like may and could are not definite terms for proposals to cut staff via compulsory process.

12. Of course the TULRCA offers process that seeks to formulate agreements, of which the unions want to fulfil expectations however, you have directly made the mandatory consultation headings impossible to discuss properly and immediately. Our frustration is that you have clearly stated that

At this early stage, we are, as we have discussed with you, unable to provide the balance of detail to complete the information that will form the basis of coming consultation.

On this basis it is impossible to call your current position a process of consultation and certainly nothing in this letter that any Trade Union could find much to agree on other than voluntary process and early voluntary retirement options. Your final errant gallop in the final bullet points you appear to have made this error offering

The proposed method of calculating any applicable statutory redundancy payment;

The Unions draw your attention back to our agreed expressed terms and conditions of the current DDCRC redundancy policy. Specifically -

9.0 Redundancy Entitlements

9.1 Staff made redundant from the CRC will be entitled to:

a) Payments -

• Notice in accordance with their contract of employment and length of service. 
• Redundancy payment based upon a calculation relating to age and length of service. This is the redundancy entitlement and a ready reckoner is shown in Table 1 for the Enhanced VR National Scheme 
• A week’s pay is defined as actual weekly pay, with a cap on the total amount based on 15 years service for the Enhanced VR National Scheme. 
• Where applicable, and subject to the Pension Plan and Redundancy rules, immediate payment of unreduced pension will be payable upon dismissal. 

b) Staff under notice of redundancy have an entitlement to a reasonable amount of paid time off to look for alternative work and or to arrange training.

c) The CRC will also assist with providing access to counselling via the Employee Assistive Programme and support from Human Resources with completing application forms and preparing for interviews. 

9.2 Due to the uncertainties that the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme changes have brought, staff retention and morale has become a key issue for the company and one of its biggest business risks. In order to attempt to address this an enhanced redundancy payment structure which reflects the payments as per the national agreements is in place for the CRC. This reflects the national position that the enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme will be introduced into the commercial contracts for the new owners of the Company and will be available to all staff who transferred into the Company. This will be subject to review at September 2016 in line with the review timetable for all policies.

An enhanced redundancy payment will be made, subject to a maximum of 67.5 weeks’ pay and reckonable service of 15 complete years. This is calculated on the basis of four and a half weeks’ of actual pay for each year of completed service. A ready reckoner is set out at Table 1. Any statutory redundancy payment is included in this payment.

We cannot understand how you have failed to reference this entitlement accurately. Suggesting the statutory legal minimum in your letter has to be an error? Would you clarify this issue and correct or indicate your actual position so that we can ensure our members are fully informed of Working Links the Company intentions.

On this basis forming or not forming agreement will be a matter for consultation with our members and obviously what actions we may well be directed to take under appropriate processes.

We look forward to your written reply and further discussion in the next JNCC.

Regards

Dino Peros Napo Branch Chair.

CC Ian Lawrence General Secretary 

Mike McClelland HC DJ Napo GC Unison Ben Priestly Unison.

--oo00oo--

Branch report redundancies update 3

Date 2/12/15

Dear Union members NAPO & Unison,

This is a short report nevertheless it is an important one because for the first time we have now received something more formal than the word and presentation dictate that we have now become weary of.

The branch reps have all taken the view the incredible speed in which the Working links now being termed the Company have started to drive things along and in some opinions without any risk assessment or impact assessments for any of their changes.

I am worried that in their haste so much is being ignored by the senior management and there is no doubt given the recent telephone conference that detail is lost or a response to a question is easily avoided. This has become unacceptable to the reps.

This difficulty in maintaining a proper dialogue and written records has seen some fractious exchange between myself and Mr. Wiseman. I am of the view taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut serves no side well and we hope that management start to recognise that we have to have full information. Proper disclosures and agreements honoured. Talking of which my thanks go out to Mike McClelland Napo National Official for his calming and cool approach to this gem of a contribution from him to the Working links the Company head.

Actually I suppose we might simply assume the most favourable if they haven't been harmonised, as the words used in the agreement are 'default position'. As you know, we would actually welcome harmonisation to the most favourable policy across the three CRCs, though we recognise that there are three different employers.

On EVR, it has been established that these terms should apply for the lifetime of the contracts so far as the CRCs are concerned.

Para 16. of the National Agreement refers: "In addition, the commercial contracts will specify that, other than where more beneficial terms exist, where voluntary redundancy is offered, the enhanced terms set out at Appendix B should apply to any member of staff in a CRC employed by a Probation Trust on 31 May 2014.

This of course only for staff employed on 31 May 2014.

It speaks for itself Thanks Mike!

I have decided rightly to share with you the type of veiled and threatening change of position for you to judge for yourselves. You will see in reply we have picked up on some of the cross conflicts of issues but we are a long way short of anything we need.

In order for you NAPO and Unison members to help we must recruit all our staff into the branch and ensure we collectively prepare for whatever action is necessary if the employers suspected real plans unfold, in ways that actually lead to compulsory dismissals!

In the meantime your branch officials welcome all your feedback and comments to the letters. Any comments and support or issues we may miss are all welcome. I am hoping that you will print and share the information widely in offices and raise your concerns in team briefings.

We in the JNCC will remain steadfast to ensure the Company honours all your terms and conditions as long as we stand together and ensure the Company understand that message loud and clear.

We will write again shortly as we get a further hold on talks and remind you the next JNCC is the 7th of December and the branch has 2 observer positions for any members that want to attend so you can see what we are dealing with in relation to the current talks. Any takers?

Finally, if you are reading this and not currently a member of the Union now is the time to join NAPO. 2 steps – 1. Google www.Napo 2. Follow the sign up link and direct debit mandate. Join now as together we are stronger!

Dino Peros Branch Chair JNCC rep, 
Helen Coley JNCC rep, 
Denice James JNCC rep.

Dodgy Contracts

I'm grateful to the Napo member who has forwarded the following letter to me. This paragraph says it all in my view:-

"As a result of the way that the TR contract has been commissioned, the challenges we face working in a PBR environment, a drop in service users and doubts over the position on the WAV band we are in a position where will need to find efficiency savings of up to 40%."

No wonder all the CRC's went to London en masse to tell Gove the contracts were based on dodgy information and why the MoJ is desperately trying to think up imaginative ways in which to shift work from NPS to the shafted privateers.

27th November 2015

Dear Dino 

Collective consultation 

I am writing to you in your capacity as NAPO representative, in respect of the Dorset, Devon & Cornwall Community Rehabilitation Company's (the Company) proposals for changes to the operating model for the Justice and Employability parts of the Working Links group and the proposals to deal with the challenges of a reduced Weighted Average Volume (WAV) within the Company. 

There is a lot of information that we still do not have but we are conscious that during our on-going dialogue, you have expressed a desire to have information as it becomes available so this letter sets out some information and we will of course update you as and when information becomes available. 

As a first step, I am writing to update you on where we are with the development of the Working Links Way, the proposed use of technology to support the Working Links Way and some detail about likely reduction in the WAV. 

The past weeks have been focused on explaining why change is necessary and listening to views and ideas from employees, sponsors and other internal and external stakeholders. These have covered a broad range of issues including how we can deliver a common platform for maintaining quality of service delivery, have a flexible workforce across a flexible estates portfolio and provide a platform for future growth. Since share sale, there have been over 25 workshops and 35 processes reviewed which have enabled us to pull together ideas on how to achieve this.

We have considered the ideas and contributions made by employees who attended the workshops. 

Whilst the Working Links Way is focused on improving the business and the quality of service for customers and service users, employees of the Company may be affected by some of these changes. In addition, the Company is also facing an unexpected challenge caused a reduction in WAV as it is becoming clear that the current WAV is less than the projected WAV which Working Links were informed about during the Transformation Rehabilitation bidding process. 

As a result of the way that the TR contract has been commissioned, the challenges we face working in a PBR environment, a drop in service users and doubts over the position on the WAV band we are in a position where will need to find efficiency savings of up to 40%. 

We would like to continue to discuss these challenges with you and our proposals to deal with them in a collaborative way. There are a number of options to consider with you but we recognise that one possible outcome is that there may be some redundancies within the Company as a result of the proposals. 

As this is one possibility, we intend to file the appropriate paperwork to the government as required by law to enable our dialogue with you to continue. We will send you a copy of the necessary HR1 form and associated documentation in due course. 

The Company plans to have collective redundancy consultation with its local representatives of UNISON and NAPO concerning these proposals. It may be the case that when the affected employees are broken down to each establishment within the Company that the relevant threshold for collective consultation is not met, however, the Company is keen and willing to consult with your local representatives in any event and we will be proceeding on this basis. We currently propose to explore all options with you, including the option of achieving redundancies through voluntary methods. 

Where we refer to "dismissals" below, our focus is on any surplus created by the implementation of the Working Links Way, including the proposals for Hub Operations and certain work to be carried out by them, and potential changes to address the likely reduction in WAV. We use the term dismissals, because that is what the law refers to. 

Diane Powell, Director of Human Resources and Learning and Development, Elaine Morgan, Assistant Chief Executive, Marie Kyme, HR Manager and myself will be leading the company side of the collective consultation process with Denice James, Helen Coley and yourself as representatives of NAPO and Glo Curtis as a representative of Unison. If necessary we may call on others to assist where appropriate.

In compliance with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A), I set out below the reasons for the proposed dismissals which are: 

• The likely reduction in the current and future WAV compared to the WAV information provided by the Ministry of Justice during the Transforming Rehabilitation bidding process; and 
• Implementing the proposed Working Links Way which has some elements which may impact on staff, such as the proposed operating model to introduce Hub Operations and an universal delivery infrastructure which could impact some of the current Front Line Operations. 

As anticipated by TULR(C)A, we shall be consulting with a view to reaching agreement on ways of: 

• Avoiding the proposed dismissals; 
• Reducing the numbers of employees to be dismissed; and 
• Mitigating the consequences of the dismissals. 

We understand the potential for these proposals to be notable, and so we are currently discussing with you ways in which we could mitigate their effect. One proposed method we are willing to discuss is voluntary redundancy following which approval of any requests will be on criteria to be discussed in consultation; we will also be using natural wastage, and releasing agency workers in order to avoid the need for compulsory redundancies. 

At this early stage, we are, as we have discussed with you, unable to provide the balance of detail to complete the information that will form the basis of coming consultation. However, as soon as we are able we will provide you with the following detail – 

• The number and description of those who may be dismissed as redundant following conclusion of our process; 
• The total number of employees of such description employed in the establishment in question; 
• The proposed method of selecting any such employees and the proposed method of carrying out any proposed dismissals; 
• The proposed method of calculating any applicable statutory redundancy payment; 
• The number of agency workers working temporarily for an under our supervision, the parts of our business where these staff work, and the type of work they are carrying out. 

As we have explained in our meeting, we will provide this detail as and when it becomes available, and will update this letter accordingly.

This will no doubt be a challenging time for those involved, so I hope that we shall be able to work together cooperatively to discuss the proposed changes and their impact on our employees.

Yours sincerely

John Wiseman 

Probation Director

For and on behalf of the Dorset Devon & Cornwall CRC

Gove : TR Omnishambles Next?

From the Independent:-

Tax on justice: Victory in our campaign to repeal the atrocious criminal courts charge

If there is one phrase that David Cameron does not like to see in the headlines, it is “government U-turn”. The Prime Minister believes it is a sign of weakness, of not sticking to your guns. Yet we have seen two significant about-turns by cabinet ministers in the past nine days.

First, George Osborne wisely ditched his £4.4bn of cuts to tax credits that would have hurt Britain’s low-paid “strivers”. Now, Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, has dumped the controversial criminal courts charge introduced by his predecessor Chris Grayling – who would have been better described as the “Injustice Secretary”.

The move followed a sustained campaign by this newspaper against the pernicious “tax on justice”, and complaints from magistrates, judges, lawyers and MPs. They warned that defendants could be encouraged to plead guilty to offences they did not commit in order to avoid a charge of between the flat rate £150 and up to £1,000 if convicted after pleading not guilty. The charge led to the resignation of more than 50 magistrates who felt they could not conscionably impose a counter-productive fine on individuals who had committed minor crimes, often motivated by poverty.

We wholeheartedly welcome Mr Gove’s rethink and take pride in our part in securing it. Mr Gove argued that the intention behind the policy was honourable, while admitting it had “fallen short”. That is an understatement. Mr Grayling must have been well aware of the likely effect of his policy. The lesson is that austerity should never mean balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Mr Gove has now announced a review of the financial sanctions and penalties courts can impose, with a view to bringing greater simplicity and clarity. That sounds sensible; the current regime is very complicated. But Mr Gove, under Treasury pressure to cut costs in a department not protected in last week’s Spending Review, should not undo his good work by finding other ways to hit people on low incomes when reducing the taxpayer’s share of running the criminal justice system.

Mr Gove has also wisely ended Mr Grayling’s attempt to ban books for prisoners. He scrapped the Ministry of Justice’s bid for a £5.9m prisons contract in Saudi Arabia, saying it should not help a regime that uses beheadings, stoning and beatings. He is held up by Mr Osborne as a model moderniser for his plans to reform prisons, which will see inner-city sites sold off for housing and could result in a net gain for the public purse. He is looking at radical ideas to tackle underlying causes of criminality following the example of initiatives which have cut the prison population in parts of America. There might just be the seeds here of a revolution that would finally address our high reoffending rates and stop our jails being “universities of crime”.

The Justice Secretary’s new broom is welcome. He should go further by looking again at another aspect of Mr Grayling’s legacy: the contracting out of much of the probation service to private firms, which now monitor low- and medium-risk ex-offenders. This has led to hundreds of jobs being lost, an exodus of 1,800 experienced probation staff and complaints of extra bureaucracy. No doubt the Treasury would be nervous about rewriting contracts with private providers, which could be expensive. One key test of Mr Gove’s credentials will be whether he can mitigate the crisis in the probation service.e is likely to happen until there is a major catastrophe - which may have already happened but been unreported yet.

--oo00oo--

Many close to probation predicted disaster from the moment the announcement to split probation locally was announced over two years ago and at a stroke, create a more dangerous structure throughout England and Wales.

Parliament failed to act rejecting amendments to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill (now Act) 2014 - which would have put Parliament in charge of the reform process.

Folk simply do not care and probation folk are worn out with protesting - mine is the first comment to this article - 22 hours after it was published - meanwhile I am sure the blogs are alive with talk about stuff that is beyond the influence of the UK Parliament that are of little direct consequence to us - despite their interest.

I see the Napo (probation union) general secretary has to day blogged about 40% staff cuts by one probation employer - I shall be amazed if it is reported by any news outlet apart from maybe The Morning Star!

Andrew S Hatton

--oo00oo--

Latest blog from Napo General Secretary:-

WORKING LINKS SPECIAL

JOB LOSSES LOOM AS HUGE OPERATING CUTS ARE ANNOUNCED

If further proof were needed of the total shambles that Transforming Rehabilitation has caused, than look no further than the news revealed over the last day that the Community Rehabilitation Companies owned by Working Links are about to put forward plans for swingeing cuts in the region of 40%.

This has rightly caused anger amongst members in the three CRC’s concerned covering Wales, Avon, Bristol and Devon, Dorset, and Cornwall who having gone through the trauma of the TR assignment process now find themselves in a potential redundancy situation.

Urgent talks are being convened between the national probation unions, local reps, senior CRC management and their owners about the extent of the intended cuts and their impact on staff numbers, but it is not hard to see how disastrous these will be to people’s future employment prospects in areas already blighted by the austerity agenda.

As always Napo will issue more detailed news once it is available but during my visit to South Western Branch members in Exeter recently I made it clear that Napo stands ready to assist them in negotiations with management, local campaigns against cuts of this order that can only pose a serious risk to public safety and ultimately industrial action if members decide that this is what they want.

Heads should roll but it shouldn’t be our members

Whilst Working Links will no doubt join the ever increasing whinge queue and pray in aid the Weighted Annual Volumes (WAV) figures and the absence of reliable information that was available to them from the infamously dodgy MoJ Data Room (see my ‘Salting the Mine’ Blog from a while ago). Key question doing the rounds is that someone ought to be accountable for predicating a bid that several months on could see one third of the combined workforce over the three CRC’s disappear.

We were told by Ministers before TR that the workforce in the then proposed CRC’s would ‘evolve’. Try telling that to staff who have given their all whilst being treated like chattels in the shambolic and discredited procurement process, and people who, even if they secure the Early Voluntary Redundancy terms that of course we will be insisting upon so as to avoid compulsory redundancies, face little likelihood of similar employment.

Ministers will offer a sympathetic message or two and again praise the hard work of probation staff etc. etc. but the reality is that their platitudes will be seen by our members as not worth a fig. More news on this development next week, along with the other stuff that I have had to park for now.

--oo00oo--

Mcr. CRC Chief at recent staff meeting stated job losses imminent - whilst going on to announce her own promotion!

Probation Institute Responds

Being responsive

This is my second blog in a series reflecting on my new role as chair of the Probation Institute. I have now been in this role for around three busy months at a time when the PI is beginning to deliver and promote its agenda to support the needs of the probation profession in all its plurality. Recently on the excellent blog ‘on probation’ a series of, at times, challenging points made by probation staff about the PI were aired. This blog will also seek to respond to some of the points made there.

Starting a new organisation with minimal financial backing in a time of austerity and massive disruption to the profession it is seeking to serve was never going to be easy. Though the concept of the Institute had been around for many years, it had failed to gain sufficient traction to get off the ground. But even as the worst excesses of transforming rehabilitation were being rolled out, the importance of such an organisation became apparent to many and the steering group composed of representatives of PA, NAPO, PCA and Unison brought the PI into existence. A stubborn and important action as no one else was doing this! It has taken time, no doubt too much time according to the blog posts, to build the agenda. It has been bedevilled by a number of understandable but in my view surmountable concerns. The blog posts identified three recurring problems – links to the MoJ and CRCs, demands on membership and not fulfilling a campaigning role.

By its very nature the PI must work in partnership with all the constituent groups, though no Board member pretends this is easy or without conflict. We remain committed to keeping our doors open to the MoJ, NOMS, NPS, CRCs and the voluntary sector. After all, these are significant employers and policy makers for probation staff and any institute has to understand that context so it can offer services to all its constituent groups. But our concept of partnership goes much wider than this and we are establishing meaningful relationships with a wide variety of organisations, including service user organisations, to ensure our work is understood, our purposes explored and out of this networks can grow. We are in no one’s pocket other than our members. I stated this in my first blog and do not intend to dwell on this further. There are no corporate memberships as questioned in one post just working partnerships. But instead of creating false battlegrounds we need to turn the discussion around about how we can more effectively do the job we set out to do.

We are accused of being silent and it is true that the PI has been busy establishing the key elements of its business and during this time communication may not have been as good as it could be. But that is not the same as doing nothing. As individuals we would comment on TR and readers will know my own contributions. But the PI’s prime agenda is the profession of probation and by definition we must have a forward looking agenda and engage with what is happening now. We are now in a much more robust position in our key areas – registration, professional frameworks, networks and as a centre for excellence. One critical blog post suggested:

‘I agree probation needs a professional body, a format for registering qualifications and professional development, a credible place for identifying and accessing research and training, and a probation focused authority to speak on behalf of probation practice. Sadly the PI in its current form is not it, and has tried to be too broad and therefore too vague.’

I cannot agree. Our journey on all these issues has made notable progress. We have pioneered a registry, against almost universal opposition, because we believe it offers an essential marker for the profession. It has not been easy to maintain this commitment and as yet it is right to point out we have not achieved a ‘proper register of licensed practitioners’. But that is the longer term goal and the infrastructure created is ready for this task. The more members take up their place in the registry, the more it becomes the default place for licensing. The challenge here is not the registry itself but the need for members to respond to its existence. We have the infrastructure, you have the bodies.

In two weeks time we launch our Professional Development Framework. The result of intensive work by a small working group backed by a larger reference group. This is a major piece of work which offers a one-stop-shop to professional and career development in a world where a plurality of providers makes career patterns uncertain and difficult to chart. 

The Framework is intended to be:

Inclusive: enabling all workers in the probation, rehabilitation and community justice field to map their career progression

Integrative: bringing together all related frameworks such as the NOMS Community Justice Learning for probation officers into the framework, or restorative justice standards for instance;

Adaptive: have the flexibility to adapt its core standards to partners training and developmental needs for all groups working in this field;

Aspirational: promoting a renewed focus on post qualifying development, an area neglected in recent years. We want to create a professional identity which sees lifelong learning as a right.

This Framework is ambitious but deliberately so as we seek to create an environment where professional growth and development cannot be ignored but is at the heart of good practice in every probation and community justice agency.

The PI has sought to engage all its members, employers and many wider groups associated with the world of probation and community justice in networks of practice and development. David Raho with many others significant in this field has spearheaded work in the difficult area of electronic monitoring and a final report is due shortly. Over the forthcoming months and years this will become a thriving part of the PI as more networks emerge and we deliver policy documents on a wide variety of practice areas. We want this to be done with members and genuinely reflect our joint aspirations for high quality practice.

Such outcome reports will enable the PI to speak with authority on practice matters. It is not up to the administration within the PI to determine that policy but to create the environment in which networks can flourish and outcomes are as considered as the work of the EM network will prove. New networks on ‘Women and Justice’ and on ‘Restorative Justice’ are just emerging. Please get involved in this vital work.

Our fourth area, some of which will spring from the professional networks discussed above is the crucial area of creating a centre of excellence. One blog post said the PI ‘enjoys more traction with academics than practitioners’. I reject this as a false dichotomy. If the PI is to do its job its membership must come from all sections of the probation and community justice world. That includes the many friends that probation has in academia who have supported probation, as I have, in its struggles and campaigns, whilst producing research which demonstrates how practice can and does work. But we must go wider than that and recognise that the profession has management amongst its numbers. There has been a criticism of those who have applied and become Fellows, yet they collectively represent from practice, management and research the great traditions of probation to which we must surely aspire. My challenge to practitioners is why not apply for fellowship and join that journey for excellence. We have a committee set up to pursue this agenda and we are talking to everyone who will listen, explaining that we can provide that repository of knowledge. The speed of this depends on engagement and ultimately on funds.

We have no secret access to funding. We ask for your support as members because we need your support as individuals to grow this agenda. If we had the resources to offer reduced memberships we would do so. But there is a challenge here to those who stand on the sidelines and criticise our drive to recruit new members. I believe strongly in my own professional development and I will pay for it to achieve personal growth and change. We have kept membership fees at a level well below that of comparable organisations. We are better with you in and being active. Click on the website now and join.

Most of the work of the PI is done by people volunteering to get involved. I have pursued professional excellence and aspirations throughout my career through Napo, through writing, through the social work council, through supporting training and development and through research. My name was mentioned in the blogs a few times with one comment saying this: ‘I respect the likes of Paul Senior and Sue Hall but they’re not doing enough if they want it to work’. I have offered to come to areas and talk about the Institute and some have taken up that offer but the offer remains on the table. This is not paid work for either of us. We are pushing as hard as we can; if you respect our contributions, please take some of the load and get involved. We do not have the monopoly on what is the right way forward but we will continue to try and not get locked into self-defeating arguments. No one knows more than I do the crushing way in which these reforms have affected probation staff and I have spoken and written on these issues many times. The Institute wants a secure profession across all agencies undertaking probation work, wherever that work is taking place. Don’t we all? Please join us in this endeavour.

Paul Senior

Editor's note - the blog post can be found here and is published on the Probation Institute website.

New Look London CRC 2

A fresh approach to working with stakeholders 

Learn more about our ongoing commitment to working with our external partner organisations to reduce reoffending

As part of our commitment to stakeholder engagement, and to support our new ways of working, London CRC will operate two new Directorates from 1 December 2015. Donna Charles Vincent is Deputy Director of Operations and Iain Anderson is Deputy Director of the Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate. 

Adopting the Offender Cohort Model will allow operational staff to spend more time face-to-face with their offenders And, as well as establishing a range of offender interventions, staff in the Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate will build and maintain partnership and supply-chain relationships. 

What does this mean? 

Within the Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate there will be four Heads of Stakeholders and Partnerships. Each of these senior managers will report directly into Iain Anderson and will work across a number of London boroughs (see page six for details). They will be responsible for engaging with both local strategic partners and organisations that work across all London boroughs. The Heads of Stakeholders and Partnerships will therefore be London CRC’s dedicated first points of contact for all its strategic partnerships. This means that you may have a new London CRC contact from December and it gives us an opportunity for more focused collaboration with our partner organisations. 

Donna and Iain will be working closely to ensure a smooth transition to our new approach to stakeholder management. We are in the process of handing over responsibility for local partnership arrangements from the Operations Directorate to the Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate.

A more focused approach 

London CRC’s Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate remains committed to working with you to reduce reoffending in your borough by working collaboratively and sharing information. We will also proactively identify new opportunities for joint working and cocommissioning services that deliver tangible reductions in reoffending. And we will continue to fulfil our Community Safety (Integrated Offender Management) and Safeguarding (MultiAgency Safeguarding Hubs) responsibilities, albeit in a different way. We are in dialogue with affected partners to outline our new approach. In summary, we intend to help our partners meet their local crime reduction priorities by focusing our involvement where we can have the most impact: 

• The Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate will work strategically with the Reducing Reoffending Boards to identify new interventions and help shape policies and commissioning decisions 
• While staff are unlikely to be able to attend every Community Safety Partnership meeting, they will provide written reports that capture the specific information needed by individual partner organisations. 
• If asked to do so, we will attend meetings to help develop strategic plans or crossdepartment policies, or to provide clarity on London CRC operations.

Our Rehabilitation, Partnerships and Stakeholders Directorate will be responsible for: 

• Working with prison staff and supply-chain partners to ensure our mandated Through the Gate services are embedded in all London’s resettlement prisons. 
• Engaging local partners to identify new community safety projects. 
• Identifying new employment and training opportunities for offenders

London CRC’s Through the Gate service 

Helping to prepare offenders for their release from custody

In response to changes introduced by the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 – and as part of our new contract with the Ministry of Justice – London CRC launched a new Through the Gate service in May this year. Six months on, we take a closer look at this partnership approach to coordinating the resettlement of offenders leaving London’s prisons. 

The Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 introduced changes to the offender sentencing and release framework including: 

• Extending release on licence to custodial sentences of less than 12 months 
• Introducing a period of additional supervision after licence for offenders serving custodial sentences of less than two years. 

This means that, for crimes committed from 1 February 2015, all offenders who serve a prison sentence of less than 12 months are automatically supervised by probation for a year following release. This is intended to break the cycle of reoffending which is prevalent among those who serve short prison sentences. 

A universal resettlement service 

London CRC’s Through the Gate (TtG) service provides a valuable opportunity to work with offenders who may previously have had very little coordinated support to help them prepare for release from custody. The new universal resettlement approach ensures that offenders – regardless of the length of their sentences – start to prepare for their reintegration back into society from the day they are imprisoned. 

All offenders who will be supervised by London CRC when released from prison (including those spending less than 12 weeks in custody), now receive comprehensive resettlement support while still in custody. To facilitate this, offenders serving more than 12 months in custody are transferred to a resettlement prison close to their home within 12 weeks of their release date. 

A partnership approach 

As part of our TtG service, all offenders on remand or serving custodial sentences are screened by both the Prison Service and London CRC when they enter prison. Based on the results of the Basic Custody Screening Tool (BCST2) assessment, London CRC develops a Resettlement Plan for all incoming prisoners. The plan includes: 

• Accommodation advice 
• Employment retention and brokerage 
• Financial advice 
• Signposting services for sex workers and victims of domestic and sexual violence. 

As one of London CRC’s supply chain partners, St Mungo’s help service users to find settled accomorganisations complete the Resettlement Plan and provide Post Sentence Supervision support to offenders on our behalf: 

• Novus – part of the Manchester College Group and a not-for-profit social enterprise dedicated to delivering education, training and employability programmes in prisons, Approved Premises and the community. 
• Penrose – a registered charity that specialises in working with repeat offenders with complex needs and those whose mental illness is exacerbated by substance misuse issues. 
• Women in Prison – a national charity that provides a range of gender-specific support to women in prison.modation in preparation for their release from custody.

Once our new Cohort Model launches on 7 December, these organisations will support London CRC to assess and deliver services for our offenders both in custody and upon release. For example, Penrose will work with working age males during the Post Sentence Supervision period in the community. 

Getting it Right: addressing reoffending triggers 

To support their resettlement, all offenders in London’s resettlement prisons will be given an opportunity to attend a four-week modular ‘Getting it Right’ programme either in prison or in the community. The programme addresses an individual’s primary reoffending triggers and offenders complete a Change Plan Journal to help them develop a personal relapse prevention plan. The journals are a useful tool for offender managers to use to enrich an offender’s probation supervision sessions. 

We are also currently trialling ‘Healing Trauma’, a TtG programme tailored to the needs of women offenders.

London CRC’s Through the Gate service at a glance: 

• A universal resettlement service regardless of the length of custodial sentence 
• Comprehensive resettlement support while in custody 
• A personal Resettlement Plan for all offenders 
• A range of partner organisations provide Post Sentence Supervision support 
• Optional ‘Getting it Right’ programme to address personal reoffending triggers.