Prison Reform at Last?

With just two days to go before we learn for definite what's in the Queen's Speech, the expectation for prison reform, first stoked-up by David Cameron himself barely a couple of months ago, couldn't be higher. The scene was set by Michael Gove's speech 'Making Prisons Work' last week to senior prison governors in which he signalled yet more rowing-back from the disastrous decisions made by his predecessor Chris Grayling. This from the Telegraph:-  
  
Michael Gove boosts prison early release scheme despite 'Skull Cracker' scandal

A controversial scheme allowing prisoners out of jail which was curtailed after the “Skull Cracker” scandal is to be boosted by Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary. He said “release on temporary licence”, or ROTL, which sees offenders let out for short periods before the end of their sentences could be “successful” and “safe” despite high-profile failures two years ago. In May 2014 the violent armed robber Michael Wheatley, dubbed "the Skull Cracker" raided a building society after absconding while on release from an open prison.

Mr Gove also backed prison governor Russ Trent who earlier this year was mocked for introducing “touchy-feely” policies at Berwyn prison in north Wales, such as requiring warders to knock on cell doors before entering. “When it comes to governing prisons, Russ’s instincts are absolutely right,” said Mr Gove. “Because the principal purpose of prison is rehabilitation.” He added that knocking on a cell door was a “basic courtesy”.

Mr Gove, in a speech to prison governors, said allowing a prisoner out on ROTL was “not a soft option. Mistakes in the past led to an understandable tightening-up of the rules. When individuals abuse freedoms, regimes will be tightened,” he said. “The number of prisoners to benefit from ROTL has fallen by 40 per cent since 2013. So I think now is the time for a change.

“After careful consideration, we have decided to give governors more control. Although it will take time for confidence in the system to return fully, I believe that it would be wrong to allow a very few high-profile cases, appalling though they were, to distract us from the long-term advantages for society of ROTL. With the help of careful assessment processes, I am confident that our reform-minded governors can identify the most promising candidates for a successful, safe, ROTL.”

Mr Gove also announced that Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences introduced by labour a decade ago will be reviewed amid concern inmates serving them are getting trapped in the system and unable to secure release. “We must not compromise public safety but there are a significant number of IPP prisoners who are still in jail after having served their full tariff who need to be given hope that they can contribute positively to society in the future,” Mr Gove said.

He said he had asked Nick Hardwick, the new Parole Board head, to help “develop an improved approach to handling IPP prisoners” to give “hope and a reason to engage in rehabilitative activity” to non-dangerous offenders.

--oo00oo--

As I have previously highlighted, I find it astonishing that Michael Gove did not mention probation once during this speech and yet our expertise will be required both in relation to ROTL assessments, Parole Board reports for the progression of IPP prisoners, together with general supervision and encouragement of rehabilitation. Probation is an essential player in any plans by Gove to try and reduce the prison population and bring about reform, so why is he conspicuously ignoring us? 

But the situation in prison is getting much worse by the day and there's an avalanche of reports indicating a serious situation needing urgent action that can't wait for legislation. The latest from the House of Commons Justice Select Committee could not be much more blunt:-

Prison safety: action plan urgently needed to reverse rapid deterioration
Scope of the report

The most recent safety in custody statistics and the data for the previous quarter show higher rates of self-inflicted deaths, self-harm and assaults than in the corresponding previous 12 months, and ongoing significant growth in the number of assaults and self-harm incidents:

• Assaults rose 20% in the 6 months to December 2015 compared to the preceding 6 months. There were 2,690 assaults against staff in the six months to December 2015, an increase of 18% compared to the previous 6 months.
• Since January 2015 each quarter there have been over 150 serious assaults between prisoners. A prison officer working for Serco, Lorraine Barwell, tragically died in July 2015 after being attacked by a prisoner she was escorting from court.
• In the 12 months to March 2016 there were 100 self-inflicted deaths – up from 79 in the previous year.
• According the Prison Officers’ Association, deployment of tactical intervention teams from the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG) – which attends incidents at height, incidents of hostage taking and incidents of concerted indiscipline – have reached “unprecedented levels” of 30 to 40 times a month.
• There were 1,935 fires in adult prisons and young offender establishments in 2015, a 57% increase on 2014.

In addition to the influx of new psychoactive substances, which has had a significant impact on the working of the prison economy, Mr Selous, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Rehabilitation, attributed the decline in safety to a more challenging mix of prisoners, and a higher than anticipated prison population at a time when staffing numbers had been reduced.

These factors were already present at the time of the previous Justice Committee’s inquiry into prisons: planning and policies in 2014-15, so may not fully explain the ongoing and significant deterioration in safety.

Ministry of Justice and National Offender Management Service

The MoJ and NOMS have sought to improve prison safety through a wide range of legislative, operational and staff recruitment measures, including the creation of new offences of possession of new psychoactive substances and knife possession in prison and action to address violence through the use of body work cameras and to improve safeguarding procedures. But despite these efforts, and those of staff in prisons to keep prisoners and themselves secure and unharmed, overall levels of safety in prison have continued to fall.

Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill MP said:

"The Ministry hoped that prison safety would stabilise. In reality it has deteriorated further and continues to do so. This is a matter of great concern and improvement is urgently needed. We will examine the details of the Government’s ambitious penal reform agenda in due course. But this cannot wait. It is imperative that further attention is paid to bringing prisons back under firmer control, reversing recent trends of escalating violence, self-harm and disorder. Without such action, the implementation of these wider reforms will be undermined."

Staffing levels

On the basis that prison safety is reliant on dynamic security—staff-prisoner relationships—our predecessor Committee believed that the key explanatory factor for the obvious deterioration in standards was that a significant number of prisons had been operating with staffing levels below those needed to maintain reasonable, safe and rehabilitative regimes. Minister Andrew Selous confirmed to us that the 2,250 extra prison officers recruited when the Ministry went “full throttle with a major recruitment programme” in 2015 had resulted in a net gain of only 440 officers but was unable to tell us how far short of a full complement of staff public sector prisons were operating.

Thirty-nine percent of those who left in the past year resigned, suggesting a continuing problem with retention.

The Committee received evidence from the Prison Officers’ Association, which does not believe that recruitment has kept pace with demand or need. Noting that there were 7,000 fewer officers than in 2010 when the prison population was 2,500 lower, the POA believes that budget cuts and resulting reductions in staffing are intrinsically linked to the increase in violence, deaths and suicides.

Bob Neill said:

"There is a serious and deep-rooted issue of staff retention by NOMS. The factors underlying this issue are we suspect not fully understood by NOMS and are clearly not being adequately addressed. It is vital that they get a grip of this urgently to prevent further waste of resources on large scale recruitment drives."

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the MoJ and NOMS together produce an action plan for improving prison safety, addressing the factors underlying the rises in violence, self-harm and suicide, and including both preventative measures and punitive ones. The plan should also set out the action NOMS is taking with regard to recruitment and retention of prison staff as well as the implementation of the Corruption Prevention Strategy to address the apparent lack of observance of professional standards by some officers

The Committee also wishes to receive quarterly reports from the Government over the remainder of this Parliament, reporting on progress against the action plan and including for the purposes of greater transparency other key indicators of prison disorder not currently included in those statistics—in particular on volumes of emergency responses and serious and potentially serious incidents—as well as more timely prison performance data.

Having heard at HMP Wandsworth that prisoners are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day the Committee further asks for the number of hours each day prisoners spend locked in their cells on average at each prison.

--oo00oo--

Lord Falconer, Shadow Justice Secretary, has weighed-in:-

Prison reforms doomed unless Government takes heed of damning safety report

Today the Justice Select Committee, a cross-party group chaired by Tory MP Sir Bob Neill, publish their report into safety in prison. It highlights the full extent of the challenge facing Justice Secretary Michael Gove as he prepares to give us more detail about his proposals to reform our crisis-hit prison service.

We know already from the Government’s own figures that staff shortages, overcrowding and a rise in general violence have left many of our jails ungovernable and simply out of control. Self-harm and suicides are now at record levels and serious assaults on hardworking prison officers have surged.

Use of the prison riot squad has reached unprecedented levels with “Tornado Team” officers deployed almost daily to deal with serious incidents such as hostage situations, fires or even riots. Legal highs, psychoactive substances and other contraband seems to be smuggled in almost at will. But despite all this, that almost every indicator in prisons is getting worse and worse, Michael Gove refuses to address the elephant in the room; the rise in the prison population.

The current prison population sits at 85,381. This is nearly five thousand higher than when David Cameron took office. The rise in prisoner numbers and the reduction in prison officers has led to many members of staff concerned that they simply do not have the time to monitor the increased number of prisoners which increases the risk they face.

The weekend before last prison staff at HMP Wormwood Scrub, a jail consistently rated as one of the worst in the country, walked out citing serious risks of health and safety. Two days after the walkout two officers were hospitalized after an attack by a prisoner. We simply cannot go on like this. It is time for action and Michael Gove must now bring forward serious and radical proposals in the Queen’s Speech this Wednesday. Some of what we have heard from Gove is positive. I welcome his pledge to review the situation regarding IPP prisoners.

His proposals to give prison governors more autonomy are also welcome but this report is another reminder that he will achieve nothing if the basics are not right - and the most basic of basics is proper protection for prison officers and prisoners, and reasonable levels of discipline. That is why until he addresses the issues raised by the Select Committee then his reforms are doomed to fail.

--oo00oo--

Finally, there seems to be a plan to put most of the blame for the present prison crisis on the amount of drugs, especially NPS, now flowing freely on the wings thanks to the efforts of visitors, drones and corrupt staff. I think it's much more than that though and connected to the little respect and dignity afforded to prisoners, a situation made considerably worse as a direct result of policies introduced by the dreadful former Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling. 

It's not just those concerning books, ROTL, Earned Privileges, parcels etc, etc either, but the accumulated effect of staffing reductions, quality and quantity of food, dreadful cheap prison-issue clothing and abysmal nature of the decaying physical fabric that send out such poor signals to often emotionally-damaged people and do nothing to foster dignity, a sense of pride and responsibility, all essential elements for successful rehabilitation and re-integration into society. 

I don't think there's any doubt that Gove 'gets' this, hence his enthusiasm for the regime planned by the Governor at the brand new HMP Berwyn, so we should count our blessings that the right man appears to be in the right place, but has he got time?         

TR Update

"This blog is not fit for purpose, bends the truth, and is so one sided!"

Blame the Tories, Grayling the socialist democrats scum and the liars in Parliament whose duplicitous double speak saw the TR in. The weak who let it in and the fools who prop it up, but we should not look to blame the poor soul who held the case. Managing on Crap IT over work schedules and no workload measurements. CRC led targets NPS in a mess and more to slip through. Any preventable issues that might have been picked up by the experienced and skilled, those with practice and some vested vocational qualification and training of professionalism and pride. OH sorry, rewind 2/3 years for that.

*******
What experiences are ROs having recalling in CRC? Avoid at all costs due to loss of revenue? Drop inconvenient licence conditions? Send out search parties? Hope remanded to custody? When is a recall a recall or not? I'm not clear anymore. See any link to avoidable further offences inc SFO? I can. Guidance gratefully received, back of a fag packet will do given recent form. How about some national consistency and policy above profit, after all we are part of a justice system. Justice needs to be seen to be done, we need to be accountable to something other than the bottom line.

*******
South Yorks CRC encouraged RO's to breach last month. This month we have to run breaches through management first. We've been told we are breaching too much and the system cannot cope with the volume. Meanwhile TR has impacted on UPW. We now have very poor compliance rate, but we have to cut down on our breaches. Senior managers are leaving the CRC and we still have not got a model that works!

*******
Well the National Probation Service are currently implementing E3. This means the majority of sentencing reports will be written by untrained PSO's and the majority of offenders supervised by untrained PSO's. Yes they'll get a bit of training and development, but they will not be Probation Officers with professional probation training and qualifications. So as much as we may scrutinise the poorly trained and unqualified CRC PSO left holding the bag, the fact is that the NPS is no different. Expect many more SFO's due to inadequate sentencing reports and poor supervision of sexual and violent offenders.

How's everyone getting on with the new tick-box and wordcount limited shoddy Pre-Sentence Report format? That's another bit of NPS E3 innovation for you!

********
Anyone can write reports they are not difficult but doing them with a lot of the word Thus you need to be qualified as a PO as the word thus is full of the sort old leaning of pretentious rubbish they rely on to pretend reports are more than a fact report on a range of pre determined issues.

*******
Rubbish. Not anyone can write a good pre sentence report. The new short format report is a template for dummies aimed at those that cannot write reports. This is why they will not let PSO's officially loose on writing complex reports on the high risk and dangerous cases.

*******

Through the gate is a sham, I've not seen anything useful. Catch 22 and the others are milking it for their CRC's. They sign up prisoners pre-release, complete a CV, have a chat about housing options and that's it. Then they email probation officers telling us what we already know, summarise what we're already doing, but provide nothing. This nothing is what they call 'soft outcomes' and how they generate income for doing nothing.

*******
Yep exactly. Apart from in some cases it's more dangerous than doing nothing because they say prisoner has accommodation when they don't which comes with it's own risks. If PO thinks case is to be released somewhere safe then finds out actually there is no bed and they have plans to live with vulnerable children when actually this was known to prison and offender months before.

*******
It's because it's easy money. In some prisons all prisoners are automatically referred in to the CRC and TTG. For those that decline or opt out, any application they make for housing and employment services opts them back in as its a dual referral to the CRC and TTG. The actual TTG service provided is usually an assessment of wants and needs. Then an application to the homeless department or an application for a bank account is made, or some other feeble activity TTG can take credit for, and that's whether the prisoner needs it or not. 

I'm regulary getting emails from TTG staff in prisons informing me they've done things like housing applications and CV's for prisoners that already have housing and CV's. The most useless dealings I've had with TTG was a man automatically referred in and provided a homeless letter to his local authority and a job search even though he was about to be deported. Referral + Assessment + Actions/Outcomes = Payment. In some prisons governors have no idea this is happening. Some OMU's don't realise either and seem to forget that CRC's are not probation any more. When they realise they'll be kicking out TTG services.

*******
The most annoying part for me is that I'm constantly badgered for information about whether I've found accommodation for my newly released prisoners so they can claim them for their targets when I've worked my arse off ! Also, I have to constantly chase up staff in custody for info about any resettlement help for clients. Very frustrating.

*******
Another important point is that they do nothing about checking potential release address for risk. They seem to see any decision around not approving address as an irritation but I suppose staff with no risk assessment training can't be blamed, it's down to their masters!

Serious Further Offence 4

From the Herts and Essex Observer:-

Stansted double murder: Jury hears more of Brett Rogers' violent past after guilty verdict

Double murderer Brett Rogers had a history of threats, violence and criminal damage against both parents before his conviction today (Friday) for killing mum Gillian Phillips and her friend David Oakes. The former milkman, 23, stabbed his 54-year-old mother to death and stamped on her face at the home they shared in Bentfield Gardens, Stansted. He also repeatedly stabbed and caused a fatal head injury to David Oakes, 60, who had stayed with her overnight.

Rogers denied murdering them both on July 22 last year, but after an eight day trial at Chelmsford Crown Court, the jury of eight women and four men took five-and-a-half hours to unanimously convict him of both killings. Rogers will receive an automatic life sentence but High Court judge, Mrs Justice Whipple, will sentence him this afternoon and announce the length of time he must remain behind bars before he is even considered for parole.

Last Thursday Rogers attacked a male and female dock officer in front of the jury during evidence by a forensic expert. The woman Serco guard was punched in the face before reinforcements arrived and overpowered him.Since then Rogers' hands have been cuffed together and he was also separately cuffed to a guard. Two other male Serco officers have also accompanied him. Today he sat impassively as the jury announced the guilty verdicts.

After the verdicts, prosecutor Simon Spence QC read out Rogers' previous convictions, which include attacks on his parents and criminal damage on their property, which the jury did not know about. In October 2011 he picked up an ornamental well from his mother's garden and threw it at his father Peter Rogers' window, smashing it. He used a cricket ball on a stick to smash the rear door of the family's address.

In January 2012, his mother would not let him in and he used a shovel to break a window in a door. In June 2012 Rogers was convicted of battery on his father. In that incident he had shouted: "I will get a knife and stick it in you." During a struggle, he put his father in a headlock.

The jury already knew that at the time of the murders, Rogers was on licence. He had been released from prison in March 2015 for causing grievous bodily harm with intent for breaking his father's eye socket in August 2012 at his flat in Bishop's Stortford. The murder trial heard that Mrs Phillips and Mr Oakes had been drinking heavily before they were killed and it would have been difficult to defend themselves. They were both covered in blood.

"Copious" amounts of blood stained the house throughout, both upstairs and downstairs. It was on walls, soaked into carpet, on kitchen, bathroom and bedroom floor, on the cream sofa, white kitchen cupboards, below the cutlery drawer and kitchen bin.

The lifeless body of Mrs Phillips, a divorced mother of two sons, was slumped on a sofa, covered in congealed blood. She had 41 stab wounds to her head, neck and torso, including one which penetrated her skull. She also had 14 blunt impact marks and a trainer, belonging to her son, was linked to bruising on her cheek.

Taxi driver Mr Oakes, who lived in nearby Mountfitchet Road, had 56 injuries to his head, neck and body, both stab wounds and blunt impact. There was significant bruising to the side of his head and his left cheekbone was fractured. His head had been kicked or stamped on. He was lying face down on the living room floor, his breath coming in gurgles. He died, shortly after paramedics arrived, of head injuries. Mr Oakes, who joined the RAF when young, had face cancer and could only communicate through nods and blinks. He and Mrs Phillips were drinking friends, his daughter Louise Wyllie told the trial. She was his only child and had only recently contacted him after many years apart.

Seven bloody knives were found in the kitchen bin, along with blood-stained clothing and trainers belonging to Rogers.The blade of one kitchen knife was severely bent and had both victims' blood DNA on the blade and the defendant's blood on the handle. Rogers had called police and claimed the murders took place while he was away at the shops for a few minutes. He claimed that as he had walked back home he was also stabbed by a stranger who walked past him.

--oo00oo--

This from the BBC website:-
Brett Rogers jailed for 32 years for murdering mother

A man has been jailed for at least 32 years for stabbing his mother and her friend to death while he was on licence after attacking his father. Gillian Phillips, 54, and David Oakes, 60, had more than 40 stab wounds each when police found them at her home in Stansted Mountfitchet, Essex, in 2015. Chelmsford Crown Court heard Brett Rogers was jailed in 2012 for breaking his father's eye socket. The 23-year-old, who received a life term, had denied two counts of murder.

--oo00oo--

This seen on twitter:-

"Seems SFO in CRC with offender being supervised by new in post untrained PSO who had been the receptionist."

Time to Move On?

"it's time to move on, it really is"

The above was said to me by someone I have the highest regard for, strangely enough just two days after the longest Inquest in British legal history had finally delivered justice for the families of the Hillsborough 96 after 27 years of tireless campaigning. I seem to recall they were advised to 'move on'  as well. 

The juxtaposition really struck me and if 'moving on' means giving up the campaign of exposing TR for what it is, namely a shameless, ideologically-driven, evidence-free, fag packet-designed destruction of a world-class public service, then I simply can't - it would feel as if the job I loved, the career I cared so much about, the amazingly good and worthwhile work we all did for the benefit of society, and most importantly to help countless profoundly damaged and disadvantaged people, had all been for nothing. It would mean having to deny that there was any worth in what we had been doing for so long and I know that's simply not true. I also know that an utter omnishambles has been created and someone has a duty to carry on speaking up about it.

As the recent NAO report confirmed, however you decide to try and spin things, there is absolutely no evidence to show that TR has been anything but a complete disaster, just as widely predicted by any and everyone who knows about the subject. The whole sorry tale is here on the blog for anyone who wants to see and it's not as if 'things have settled down, bedded in or improving'. No matter how much certain people may hope or wish for something different, all the indications are that the situation is getting worse and we're not even at CRC end-state operating models yet and NPS is about to be turned upside down by E3. 

It's widely accepted that we are in the midst of a prison crisis, a situation made considerably worse by some crass decisions made by the previous Justice Minister Chris Grayling, but subsequently reversed by his more cerebral successor Michael Gove. In fact Gove has reversed virtually all of his predecessor's key decisions bar one, that of the destruction of the award-winning probation service with TR. It always was a barking-mad idea to think that monetising the supervision of offenders was ethical, let alone that it would work, but such is our public profile that it even took Andreas Whittam Smith until this week to catch up with the lunacy of it all in the Independent.

Since David Cameron's ground-breaking speech on the obvious need for urgent prison reform and focus on rehabilitation, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Agency with highly trained staff and admired world-wide as having the knowledge and experience in this field, would be centre-stage in any plans for change, but you'd be completely wrong. Since TR was inflicted upon us, there has been a consistent policy of air-brushing the word probation completely out of the criminal justice lexicon. A classic example is that of Michael Gove's recent speech to senior prison governor's in which he confirmed that greater autonomy would be given to them, but only a few at first because obviously we need to see if it works. Clearly a lesson learnt from not conducting trials for TR.

In this major speech, Gove highlighted the urgent need to deal with the scandalous issue of IPP prisoners, most of whom are way over tariff dates, but completely unable to gain release because of problems in being afforded opportunities of demonstrating reduced risk. He also spoke of the need for increased ROTL and discretion in relation to early release, all matters that to you or I might be deemed to fall firmly within the remit of experienced probation staff to assist with, but probation didn't warrant a mention at all. We are being erased completely from the picture, North Korean-style.

There is a wide consensus that prison reform can only have a chance of working if the numbers incarcerated are reduced. Former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Lord Ramsbotham is just the latest of a long line of CJS commentators to make this point, as here on the BBC website:- 
Prison numbers 'must fall' for reforms to work says Ramsbotham

Government prison reforms will fail unless inmate numbers are reduced before they are put in place, a former chief inspector of prisons has said. Lord Ramsbotham said 30% of prisoners, some 25,000 inmates, could be freed. And Bob Neill, Conservative chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said prisoner numbers in England and Wales needed to be cut straight away.

Justice Secretary Michael Gove has said he will not artificially "manage down" the prison population. And the Conservative former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said reforms would not fully succeed until the prison population was reduced. Plans for prisons are expected to feature in the Queen's Speech next week, setting out the government's planned legislation for the year ahead.

Asked whether prisoners needed to be released before any of Justice Secretary Michael Gove's reforms were put in place, Lord Ramsbotham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Absolutely. He can't possibly do it with the numbers as they are now."

Indeterminate sentences

The cross-bench peer said some prisoners on indeterminate sentences for public protection and those who are mentally ill should be let out, adding that he estimated 30% of inmates did not need to be in prison. He said he supported the aims of the government's planned reforms, first spelt out by the prime minister earlier this year.

Ken Clarke, justice secretary between 2010 and 2012, said: "The reforms will not fully succeed until you reduce the prison population. You can do things if you have more sensible sentencing for people who aren't hardened criminals." And Mr Neill said he strongly supported the government's reform proposals but added: "I think we should be looking to start reducing the prison population straight away."

--oo00oo--

Of course the other way to reduce the number of people in prison is to send less in the first place and again you'd be forgiven for thinking that probation might have a key role to play here? Rob Allen has been talking about these issues:-

Sentencing Remarks

A fortnight ago, Prisons Minister Andrew Selous told the Justice Committee that "work on sentencing is ongoing this year, in terms of a consultation to which the Ministry of Justice has committed". Yesterday, in the course of answering an urgent question on violence in prison, Selous told the House of Commons that the Government "are currently consulting on sentencing issues".

But there seems to be nothing in the way of a formal consultation underway, at least in terms of an exercise that meets the principles on consultation that the Government launched in January.

There is a working group on problem solving courts involving the Lord Chief Justice and others, one of whose aims is “to encourage innovation in the use of judicial disposals and improve compliance with the orders of the court". Charlie Taylor’s review is also now looking at sentencing in the youth court- something the Sentencing Council, somewhat perversely, is also about to consult upon.

But unless I have missed something there is nothing along the lines of John Halliday's review of sentencing that took place in the early 2000’s. Selous’s colleague Dominic Raab is apparently holding a series of expert roundtables to look at the subject but to what end is not clear. He personally seems to favour a harsher approach but in view of the pressure on prisons and the MoJ budget, the scope for locking up more people for longer is as unaffordable as it is undesirable.

Assuming that ministers may be open to reforms that moderate our comparatively severe sanctioning response to crimes, what could they consider? I have argued that punishment levels should be reduced for women, young adults and people with mental health problems, as well as the oldest offenders. I also suggested that the Sentencing Council be asked to scale down sentencing levels for crimes across the board. But what other more specific measures could be put on the table? Here are five.

1. Scrap the plan to widen the scope for Attorney General References, the mechanism by which "unduly lenient" sentences can be increased. Numbers may be small but their effect is greater, pushing up the going rate for particular offences. It’s true that the Conservative manifesto contained a proposal to enable a wider range of sentences to be challenged “to tackle those cases where judges get it wrong” but it’s surely no longer a priority.

2. Introduce the possibility of releasing non-violent offenders from prison after serving one third point of their sentence with the period up to the half way converted to community payback. This would ease pressure on the prisons while putting more work the way of Community Rehabilitation Companies whose expected volumes of work have not materialised.

3. Enable prisoners to earn earlier release through consistent engagement with education, treatment or work in prison. Justice Secretary Michael Gove is much taken with the Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre where the Commanding Officer has a great deal of discretion over release.

4. Pilot a scheme for prisoners with drug dependency problems to serve the final portion of the custodial part of their sentence in a residential rehabilitation centre.

5. Introduce a presumption of suspending sentences of less than 12 months – a proposal made by Nicky Padfield in the latest version of the Criminal Law Review.

Alongside these sentencing changes, moving forward with the agenda of devolving budgets to a more regional or local level could also introduce a positive new dynamic into the criminal justice process. If Sadiq Khan had to meet the costs of short prison sentences served by Londoners from his budget, he might well look hard to develop more in the way of measures which could reduce the need for their imposition.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

So, one would feel there's quite a bit to get involved with here. Surely to the casual observer it's fairly obvious that probation could be playing a key role in all this, but I have to say I'm pretty dismayed at the way a once proud, world class profession has been reduced to:-  

"putting more work the way of Community Rehabilitation Companies whose expected volumes of work have not materialised."

and for this reason, I don't intend to 'move on' just yet.   

The Inspectors are Calling!

It looks like we might soon be finding out how well the much-heralded 'Through the Gate' services are working:-

09 May 2016

To: Chief Executive Officers, CRCs
Deputy Directors, NPS

Dear Colleagues

Re: Thematic Inspection of ‘Through the Gate’ Resettlement Services Community Follow-Up for Phase One

Introduction:

Through the Gate services were launched in May 2015 to assist the resettlement of prisoners. We wrote to you on 01 March 2016 to set out the plans of HMI Probation and HMI Prisons to undertake a thematic inspection of these services. As part of phase 1 of these inspections, fieldwork has recently taken place in four prisons; HMP Preston, HMP Birmingham, HMP Wandsworth, and HMP New Hall. Prisoners being released from these prisons will be followed up in the community during June 2016. This letter is to let you know how that follow-up inspection will be conducted.

Follow-up in identified areas:

We will be directly following-up the cases inspected in custody, once the prisoners have been released. Contact has already been made with the CRC and NPS in the Contract Package Areas (CPAs) served by these resettlement prisons, and arrangements are being made for inspection visits to those locations. We will follow up cases already inspected in the prisons we visited, and a small sample of other cases being released from those prisons. This follow-up will take place between 06-17 June 2016.

Follow-up of other prisoners:

It is also important that we follow up any prisoners being released outside the CPAs served by these prisons. To do that, we will use remote access to nDelius and OASys. We will make telephone calls to the responsible officers in the community, who we will identify from nDelius. Where the prisoner has already consented, we will make a telephone call to them.

We will be looking at:

• coordination of pre-release activity
• communication between CRC staff in prison and responsible officers (CRC and NPS) in the community
• integration of planning and interventions pre and post release
• the impact of resettlement work delivered by CRCs in custody 
• early resettlement outcomes for prisoners.

Further follow-up:

We may conduct further follow-up enquiries later in the year, using nDelius and OASys only. This will provide us with a more complete picture of the progress made by released prisoners, and will help inform our future inspection methodology.

Action needed:

It is possible that prisoners being released from the above named prisons could go to any CRC area or any NPS division. Please alert your staff to the fact that they may receive an email or phone call from an inspector to talk about resettlement cases. No action is needed from CRCs or NPS divisions to identify the case sample. If you have any questions please contact the lead inspector for this inspection, Liz Smith.

We are, as always, looking forward to working with you.

Yours sincerely

Helen Davies
HM Assistant Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

It will be interesting to see what the Inspection finds because the housing situation is getting much worse, especially for offenders, as outlined in this extract from a recent Russell Webster guest blog by Langley House Trust which provides resettlement services for ex-offenders:-

HOUSING BENEFIT CHANGES THREATEN OFFENDER RESETTLEMENT

Changes to Housing Benefit will wipe out 41% of supported housing

One of the most worrying proposals in the Autumn Statement and Welfare Reform and Work Bill is to change how Housing Benefit is funded. If the proposals go ahead, they will wipe out 41% of supported housing (including 82,000 specialist homes). This won’t just affect offenders who need to be re-housed after prison – it will also affect victims of domestic violence, the elderly, veterans, people with dementia and other vulnerable adults.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) could find that many of the supported housing providers they rely on to provide accommodation for people leaving prison disappear. And soon. The legislation is due to come into effect as of April 2016 and will be fully implemented in April 2018.

This is of grave concern. It has the potential to undo the millions of pounds invested in Transforming Rehabilitation. What kind of ‘rehabilitation revolution’ can there be if offenders can no longer be housed after release? Where will offenders be housed?

The MoJ’s colleagues in the Department of Work and Pensions undoubtedly did not intend for this to be a result of the Bill. But this is the stark reality that the MoJ faces if current exemptions for supported housing providers are removed.

Most people would agree that rehabilitation doesn’t work if someone hasn’t got a stable home. Trying to address issues that contribute to crime such as addictions and mental health whilst someone is rough sleeping or sofa surfing is nonsensical. If almost half of supported housing goes, the ‘alternatives’ for offenders to be re-housed after prison are:

• Council housing – over-subscribed so unrealistic
• Private rental – over-subscribed and unaffordable in some areas so unrealistic
• Homelessness – increases the risk of reoffending but realistic
• Prison – overcrowded, costly and with a poor record of rehabilitation but realistic

Rather than breaking the cycle of crime, it now seems firmly intact. And this is incredibly sad given the reforms of recent months and years.

--oo00oo--

Hi Jim,

I'm a keen reader of your blog and make it part of my routine to visit the site when I arrive home from work, so thank you for providing us with this platform!

I'm emailing you as I'm currently an agency PO in the North West and I've been with my current agency for some time. However, I've recently received an email from an agency that I had not heard of (Red Snapper) stating that I need to transfer through to them and I'd be paid less as they've won some sort of contract. If this was the case why have we not been told and why is everyone in the dark about this? The only contact I've had is from this agency and I'm concerned that this is based on lies. I've spoken to many colleagues about this and a few have received the same email and others have not which makes me think that it's not official as they've not contacted every temporary contractor.

This is the first I've heard of it and my managers have no idea what this means so it really concerns me why they are doing this? I'm wondering if you can use your blog to shed more light on the matter or if you personally know anything about this?

I am happy for you to use this email on the blog but I'd like my information to remain anonymous. Thanks.

Latest From Napo 105

Here we have the contents of an email sent to all Napo members lunchtime today. There is a link to the Agreement, together with offer letter from Michael Spurr here. 

BR 23/2016
12 May 2016

To: Napo Members
Cc: Probation Negotiating Committee
NEC
Napo Officers and Staff

Dear Colleague,

E3 Agreement Consultation

Napo has engaged fully in the NPS E3 consultations and has consistently maintained that the issues highlighted by E3 should have been fully scoped and explored prior to TR being implemented. Nevertheless, Napo has sought to protect and improve terms and conditions whilst scrutinising professional challenges as they emerge. We are indebted to the many Napo members who have engaged in various workshops to inform the process and feedback intelligence.

This engagement has helped secure a comprehensive agreement with the unions that ensures various protections on job security, pay and future engagement.

Napo General Secretary, Ian Lawrence adds: “Some form of operational review of the NPS was essential and we are glad that NPS management have been open to engaging with Napo and the trade unions about not just how to implement change but about the employment and professional implications of some of their proposals. Whilst there continue to be areas of concern for us and we recognise there will be a lot more work to do, I’m delighted that we have secured some very important protections for members."

Equally as important and because of the quality and depth of feedback from members, Napo has put professional issues at the heart of all of our discussions. The new agenda moving forward will focus on issues such as staff welfare and workloads, professional training, continuous professional development and accountability so that people can make good decisions safely at all levels. Pay, reward, performance management and appraisal will also come sharply into focus but set against this broader context and not in isolation. This is good news for Napo members.

Napo leading on E3 implementation concerns

Napo continues to have grave concerns about aspects of the proposed model. For example, professional protections will be needed for PSOs being asked to write reports without been given adequate training. There are also other ongoing training and continuous professional gaps which could destabilise any new operating model.

Concerns have been raised about the fairness and sustainability of some job evaluation exercises and their conclusions, for example SPOs potentially being downgraded despite the job evaluation. Napo is urging any members experiencing this to relay all concerns to HQ and encourages groups of staff such as VLOs to resist the pressure to submit individual grievances around job evaluation so that these issues can be dealt with at a national level.

Napo has also highlighted the limited progress on the simultaneous Offender Management Custody Review. This is likely to mean there could be an E3 phase two in prisons as this wider review progresses towards a conclusion.

E3 assimilation

As part of the planned implementation of the NPS E3 programme, some members will find their role upgraded and others potentially downgraded. Napo has secured early implementation of uplifts and protections for those potentially facing a reduction in pay.

For those getting an uplift – this will be implemented from the E3 start date (1 June 2016). This will be at least 3% in all cases and in some cases potentially more where the uplift takes someone to the bottom of the higher scale. For ACO members getting an uplift and where pay bands overlap, they will either move to the starting point of the higher band if this is more than 3 points above their current pay point or, if they are within 3 points of the starting point they would get an uplift of 3% moving above the starting point.

For those potentially being downgraded, nothing will happen until the completion of appeals against the JE outcomes (e.g. VLOs and some AP staff), or until the individuals start working to the new role. This could be many months off in some cases.

Pay Protection Secured For Three Years

Anyone in this position will also continue to receive their full current salary including all contractual payment, for a period of three years from when they start working to the new job description and not from the implementation date for E3. This is a significant concession for Napo members.

Job Security

As part of the E3 programme, unions have also secured a no compulsory redundancy guarantee. This means that staff in displaced roles will not risk losing their jobs. The pay protection also allows for a period of time for people to be reallocated to alternative roles to remove this risk for the medium and longer term. In some cases, it may be in the interests of everyone to consider voluntary exit packages. However, NPS has no allocated funding for any job reduction programme and workloads indicate that NPS needs more not less staff so Napo are confident jobs are secure.

NAPO obtains clarity for PSO members working in prisons

After months of confusion and worry for PSOs working in prisons, Napo have obtained clarity on the future employment of PSOs who were told as part of TR they would be moved out but have in many cases then been left to wait.

As the movement of staff out of prisons was part of the original implementation of TR, E3 protections do not apply to prison allowances. However, Napo is aware that some secondments have gone on so long they are no longer credible secondments. We have raised with NOMS that some people will be significantly financially worse off as a result of any move due to relocation costs such as travel and parking. Napo will continue to raise this with NOMS and members who believe they will be affected are advised to contact Napo centrally via info@napo.org.uk with your email including PRISON BASED QUESTION in the email subject.

As part of the E3 engagement Napo has secured a clear and consistent national position. Transfers will now take place from 1 June onwards, but only after a fresh round of consultation with every PSO impacted. This will allow for a review of previous preferences and informed discussion about options now these are clearer post the implementation of the E3 scheme. Even then the timing of moves will be staggered depending upon when it is safe for PSOs to be moved, and alternative arrangements to adequately support probation work in prisons is established locally.

Napo's Dean Rogers explains: "We know from feedback at meetings with PSO members in prisons that they have been unsure about if and when they will be relocated out of prisons for around two years in some cases. That is really unsettling and unfair – making it difficult to confidently plan their lives. Hopefully now this messy process gets a clean start and greater clarity going forward.”

Napo remains concerned about slow progress with the wider NOMS Offender Management Custody Review upon which we are being consulted along with other NOMS trade unions.

Members working in prisons with any concerns or thoughts around this can feed these into Napo via info@napo.org.uk with your email including PRISON BASED QUESTION in the email subject.

Yours Sincerely,

Dean Rogers
Assistant General Secretary

The Penny Finally Drops

It's a bit late in the day, but probation appears to have found a new friend in the shape of Independent founder Andreas Whittam Smith. He's been reading that recent NAO report and our plight would seem to be astonishing news to him:- 

The Tories' dismantling of the probation service really is a case of privatisation gone mad

Privatising the probation services is privatisation gone mad. That is the only conclusion you can draw from a progress report by the National Audit Office on the Government’s plans, though it received little attention when recently published.

Yes, you read that correctly: probation services – whose main task is to rehabilitate convicted criminals so that that they do not re-offend – are being made subject to the rigours of the market.

Think what the work of probation entails. Its essence is the establishment of a relationship between a probation officer and an offender. A good description was given by an outgoing Chief Inspector of Probation, Andrew Bridges, in 2011. I quote what he said at some length:

“The heart of probation practice, and youth offending practice for that matter, is about using one’s influencing skills in a one-to-one relationship. You are trying to use a relationship to achieve a purpose: the relationship isn’t the end in itself.
“You are trying to get individuals to want to change and to make changes to themselves. You are often doing it with offenders whose probability of change is very low, with the really difficult ones. Anybody who had been a practitioner 40 years ago would still recognise that now, I would say”.

Indeed, you can go right back to the origins of probation in 1876, when a charity first appointed police court ‘missionaries’ to help offenders find work and employment, to see that the task and the method has always been the same.

In 1907, the Probation of Offenders Act put the charitable activity onto a statutory basis. Courts could release offenders on probation. Probation officers were to “advise, assist and befriend”.

Activities based on relationships are expensive to run because they are time consuming. For example, the personal relationship that bank customers used to have with their managers has largely disappeared as digital technology has been introduced in order to reduce costs. These days, an application for a loan is more likely to be ‘scored’ by a computer than to be discussed with a member of bank staff. And since relationship banking has been replaced by transaction banking, a lack of respect for customers has become pervasive. This led to banks miss-selling financial products on an enormous scale.

With this example in mind – and noting also that the Government intends to pay the providers of probation services by results – I fear that the personal relationship that lies at the heart of good probation work will be first distorted and then lost.

The idea that probation work should become a commercial activity began to surface in the early 2000s. By then, the emphasis of the Conservative or neoliberal revolution launched in the early 1980s by Margaret Thatcher (together with Ronald Reagan in the US) had switched to public services.

In 2004, Tony Blair’s Labour government accepted a report that recommended what was called “greater contestability” using “providers of… probation from across the public, private or voluntary sectors”. In 2007, probation boards began to be transformed into probation trusts, in preparation for privatisation.

The Coalition government quickly went a step further: providers of probation services would be paid to reduce reoffending and the savings that would accrue to the criminal justice system would pay for this. Here, however, comes a further problem.

How can the Government be sure that a particular probation service has been solely responsible for a reduction in re-offending in the cases it has handled? The crucial factor, for instance, could have been the remedial work done by the prison from which the offender had recently emerged.

Moreover the level of crime across the country is declining and this must reflect some general trend rather than individual actions. The Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that in 2015, there was a 7 per cent decrease from the previous year.

Brushing this problem aside, the Government has made it clear that, over time, the majority of probation trusts’ current business will be opened up to competition, apart from advice to court and the management of higher risk offenders. Unfortunately the National Audit Office (NAO) report lists numerous difficulties with making such a dramatic change.

To start with, the computer systems on which the exercise depends are lamentably poor with no hope of early improvement. Their failings cause what the NAO calls “severe inefficiencies”. New tools used for assessing and allocating offenders are “cumbersome and require repeated data re-entry.”

Linked to this, the performance of the new bodies cannot be reliably measured. Crucial data that would allow the success or the failure of the new policy to be judged is often simply not available.

Worse still, there is what the NAO describes as “limited visibility” of contract commitments. The National Probation Service itself “only has copies of around 30 per cent of its contracts and does not know exactly what it spends on goods and services.”

Even more chilling, the NAO report observes that many of the successful bidders for contracts were “new to probation”. Unsurprisingly, these firms did not fancy having much of their revenue tied to the results of an activity of which they knew little. So the original purpose of the entire exercise has largely been lost.

Back in 2011, the Government said that it would “pioneer a world first – a system where we only pay for results, delivered by a diverse range of providers from all sectors. This principle will underpin all our work on reoffending. This is a radical shift.” A radical shift indeed, except that now it isn’t going to happen.

Indeed, one is entitled to question the merits of privatisation. What has happened in this case is that Conservative ministers and Ministry of Justice officials – few of whom have any direct experience of the business world – have been attempting to introduce market disciplines, that they do not understand, into a valuable social service of which, again, they seem to have little comprehension.

Doctrine has replaced thought. Which is where revolutions end.

Andreas Whittam Smith

--oo00oo--

There's a lot of damning content in the NAO report and I notice that Russell Webster has been teasing the details out in a series of blog posts. I also spotted this highlighting the ICT problems:-

Poor ICT hinders probation casework, says NAO

National Audit Office report throws focus on bad design and inefficiencies in systems used in rehabilitating offenders

Probation workers are struggling with ICT systems delivered as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, with a duplication of work, periods of unavailability and some work being lost, according to the National Audit Office (NAO).

Its new report, Transforming Rehabilitation, says the issue is contributing to operational problems and risks, undermining the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ) success in restructuring the probation service. Amid other problems, it says the reforms have exacerbated some long standing problems with ICT.

Staff have complained that the main case management system, nDelius, it is not intuitive and has been very difficult to use, partly because it was laden with performance and contract management functions as part of the reforms. There have been complaints of it wasting several hours of working time per week, and the National Probation Service (NPS) has had to make a series of minor changes. Users have also claimed that nDelius has lost work, been unavailable for some periods, and that they had received only limited training.

Recidivism risk

Problems have also arisen with the 'risk of serious recidivism' (RSR) tool to assess offender risk. It is unable to pull information from other systems, requiring staff to re-enter data, and has sometimes made miscalculations and misreported results. Staff complained the tool was time consuming to use and should not be required for high risk cases, following which the guidance was changed so its use before sentencing was not compulsory for all cases.

The Offender Assessment System (OASys) requires manual re-entry of information already in nDelius and the RSR tool, which increases the error rates; and the case allocation system is partly paper based. Work on improving the latter is currently taking place.

The NAO says these problems have prompted most community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) to install their own case management systems and ICT infrastructure. While the National Offender Management Service had planned to provide an interface between these and nDelius by June of last year, it has still not been delivered and has been holding back the CRCs' transformation plans.

Incentive mismatch

The report says another problem is that different organisations involved in the rehabilitation reforms have different incentives, and that there has been friction between NPS and CRCs' staff. Also, CRCs are paid primarily for completing specified activities with offenders, and the levels of business have been significantly lower than the MoJ originally projected.

Prison Healthcare Privatisation

Anyone who has dealings with prisons or prisoners here in the UK will have lots of horror stories regarding healthcare within the system. Rather naively many of us, including myself, thought that things would improve when responsibility passed from the Prison Service to the NHS in 2002. It didn't of course and now that privatisation is almost complete, are we confident that things will improve? This from the Financial Times:-   

Care UK becomes biggest jail healthcare provider in Britain

Care UK has become the biggest provider of prison healthcare in Britain after winning a further 21 contracts, as more National Health Service trusts hand provision of key services to the private sector. The deals, which started in April and run for five years, mean that the private equity-owned group will be working in 31 jails across the country. The deals are worth £50m a year in total and involve the transfer of about 700 employees to the company.

“Over the past few months we’ve worked closely with NHS England and our partners to ensure a seamless transition from the incumbent providers,” said Ross Dowsett, a manager at Care UK.

The deals underscore the piecemeal nature of healthcare outsourcing. With the Department of Health expected to trim billions of pounds from its budget during the next few years, the number of NHS workers transferred to the private sector has accelerated, with everything from community hospitals to individual services such as pathology, sexual health or dentistry being put out to tender. According to LaingBuisson, the industry analysts, the market for out-of-hospital services could be worth £10bn to £20bn a year.

David Hare, chief executive of the NHS Partners Network, which represents independent sector providers, said he expected the market to “continue to evolve at a steady pace”. The market is patchy but continues to develop. The NHS continues to draw on the independent sector and where the outsourcing is well researched and developed you tend to see good results.”

The engagement of the private sector in the NHS remains controversial, with doctors holding anti-privatisation placards during recent protests against changes to their pay. A healthcare conference attended by private sector suppliers in London last week was also disrupted by campaigners. Nor have all private sector ventures in the NHS proved profitable, while contract blunders have undermined industry confidence.

In December, one of the biggest NHS contracts for patient services, covering parts of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, collapsed after only eight months because it proved financially unsustainable. Earlier in the year Circle Holdings, the Aim-listed company, pulled out of its contract to manage Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire only three years into its 10-year deal. Hinchingbrooke had been the first to be handed to private sector management and dashed the hopes of those who wanted more private sector takeovers of Britain’s state-run hospitals.

Justin Crowther, head of healthcare at Catalyst Corporate Finance, said that the prison healthcare deals illustrated the significant flow of opportunities for the private sector but added that the market remained challenging for companies wanting to provide services for the NHS.

“The market certainly hasn’t died a death. But while opportunities for the private sector still exist and in some cases are still growing, the time, resource and cost associated with bidding for contracts can be substantial and economic returns uncertain. On top of this, there is the political risk inherent in the relationship between the NHS and private providers.”

Outsourcer Serco faced losses on a series of contracts including a £140m deal to provide community healthcare including specialist nursing, children’s services and speech and language therapy in Suffolk. Mitie, the FTSE 250 outsourcer, has also reported that its new homecare business, which provides support for the ill, disabled and the elderly, is less profitable than expected and that it is struggling to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of care workers. Other providers of healthcare services in prisons include G4S and Virgin Healthcare.

The National Offender Management Service handed responsibility for the provision of healthcare services in prisons to the DoH in 2002, with responsibility delegated to local health commissioning boards four years later.

--oo00oo--

Who the hell are Care UK? This from wikipedia:-

History

The company was formed as Anglia Secure Homes in 1982, becoming Care UK PLC in 1994. In 1997, the company acquired Care Solutions Limited, a learning disabilities provider responsible for 59 homes in Newcastle, Bradford, Staffordshire and Guildford. In 1998, it took on a further 7 care homes in Hampshire and the south coast with the acquisition of The Care Partnership.

Care UK delisted from the stock exchange in 2010 following a management buyout. Since 2010 its major shareholder has been Bridgepoint Capital. It bought Harmoni in 2012 from ECI Partners for about £50 million. In January 2014 it was announced that Philippa Slinger, the former chief executive of the troubled Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is to join Care UK. Since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 came into force in April 2013 Care UK has won three contracts worth £104m. In 2014/5 its turnover was £728 million.

Services

Care UK operates 85 care home facilities for older people as well as supporting over 17,000 older people and those with disabilities through home care services. The company runs 4 clinical assessment and treatment centres (CATS) and 7 NHS treatment centres, offering a range of procedures for conditions such as cataract surgery and hip replacements. In 2011, independent research organisation, Dr Foster, named Care UK as the best performing provider for hip operations.

Care UK also operates 12 GP-led health centre facilities providing walk-in services and a range of specialist mental health services including 18 homes and hospitals and residential treatment programmes for young people who have serious eating disorders.

In 2013 a joint venture with Sussex Partnership NHS Trust was created to purchase a 32-bed mental health rehabilitation unit in Gosport, and to create a 24-bed self-contained accommodation unit later in the year.

The company strategy is to concentrate on the provision of primary and secondary NHS health services. In May 2015 the company sold its mental health assets, consisting of 322 beds, to Partnerships in Care and its learning disability services group to Lifeways Group. In June 2015 the home care service which generated revenue of £72.2 million and looks after approximately 13,000 people across the UK and employs around 6,000 staff members was sold to Mears Group. It is the largest firm providing Out-of-hours services in England services with more than ten million patients.

'An Abusive Relationship'

Thanks to the reader for sending me the following email from Martin Davies, CEO of the Interserve-led West Yorkshire CRC and sent last Friday I believe:-

Dear Colleagues,

Transformation update

I am delighted to share with you the news that Probation Officers and CP Project Officers will no longer be required to participate in a ring fence selection process. I have reached this decision as per the CRCs commitment to continuously review our current FTE position. Further to this review, I am aware that a number of colleagues (Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers) have recently secured other roles outside of West Yorkshire CRC. This has resulted in a position whereby we are now approximately 6 FTE over establishment on our budgeted Senior Case Manager posts in the new model.

In view of this, I have decided to accept the existing surplus Probation Officer position and in addition accepted the surplus in CP Placement Coordinator posts in the new model. I am aware that we are now slightly under our budgeted Case Manager by approximately 5 FTE due to recent leavers. As a result I have taken a pragmatic decision that in West Yorkshire CRC an increase in the budgeted Senior Case Manager grade will account for the short fall we have in the budgeted Case Manager posts.

Therefore, I wish to confirm that all Probation Officers and CP Project Officers will have a post secure in the new structure. Our long term aim is to arrive at the new budgeted figures. However, this will be achieved through natural movement and leavers.

I am sure this news will be very welcome by staff and I would have hoped to have been in this position earlier without staff having to spend time on completing employee reports. I do want to re-assure all staff that we are constantly reviewing our figures and workload. Where possible I am keen to ensure we maximise employment opportunities and reduce any potential redundancies.

Yours Sincerely

Martin Davies
Chief Executive

--oo00oo--

What a rubbish way to treat people. We all feel like we are in an abusive relationship. How wrong he is about how we all feel. We are angry! One PO felt sick. He thinks we are grateful?!! I didn't care about the forms we filled in - sod it and get rid of me - but some colleagues are worried about money etc.

Napo at Work in the South West 2

Thanks to the reader for supplying the following:-

Branch report redundancies update 9

06 05 2016
Dear Napo members,

On 29th April we attended the Joint union Meeting at Worle. This brings together senior management with the regional and national heads of the Unions. In relation to DDC Napo you have your elected JNCC reps who maintain a position of prime negotiators with regard to policy on your behalf. This cannot be passed on in anyway because it is part of the collective agreement and recognition arrangements. In fact it was under the process of collective bargaining locally and within the region that we as NAPO representatives originally drafted and brokered the current redundancy policy. It was NAPO that fought aggressively to ensure it was amended updated and the current merger terms were agreed across the counties prior to the takeover of Working Links the company and their euphemistic Working Links Way. The redundancy policy in current form has sought to protect you with a range of process that Working the Company and the Working Links Way have sought to avoid.

Our Redundancy policy is the best in the regions and in terms of pay scale rates should the worst happen. It is harmonised to protect Dorset members and impacts on all staff including non-members through the collective agreements as these always override.

In the recent Working Links consultation they have proposed to form an arrangement whereby all the CRCs under the Working Links Way and control should NEGOTIATE on policies collectively within the regions. This includes Wales and other union’s representatives potentially having a much greater say in the outcome of terms for you in Napo. These proposals have been called the terms of reference and as such a proposal document has been drafted several times for agreement and discussion. Having still survived several incarnations the position is that our sister union unison want to agree a regional negotiator framework. A forum that can make decisions over your elected reps via the separate CRCs. Very clearly we have transmitted through your JNCC reps and our member led mandate that we will not compromise the primacy of our CRC DDC position whereby an alternate group could technically agree policy change on your behalf.

This situation has led to an impasse and we have not been able to agree the terms of regional discussions just yet, until we resolve the issues internally across the unions. The risks to us in DDC are far too great and will place your current terms at risk of other negotiations that we cannot really agree to. Such a position will risk more than we are able to secure in these current times. More obviously we look to the achievement and record of other areas and sister unions on their policy positions and obviously we have to work to your best interest. This can only be achieved through assertive and what was apparently fairly aggressive discussions of late with unison. This takes considerable effort but we are strong enough to ensure resistance to pressure that will not alter our position. In the meantime the Napo JNCC reps maintain and intend to ensure primacy is within our control and yours. This is helped by NAPO continuing our membership led union and your regular consultation meeting via the branch.

Please ensure you attend the AGM on the 15th of June to hear more of the implications and to support the General Secretary Ian Lawrence who has agreed to attend to address members. We have also invited Angela Cossins DD Head of NPS SW region yet to confirm and who we hope will attend and speak to members share a platform and in particular address matters for the NPS colleagues with the GS.

At the JUM business we had the GS in attendance and sad as it is, to say we did not actually have time to miss Mike McClelland. The issues just kept coming. Although a round of applause for his service was made and a public acknowledgement and thanks for his work from the GS was noted.

In the meeting we heard a certain amount of what was no doubt contrition from Mr Hindson. At one point I had to, as a matter of integrity, apologise to MR Wiseman although a little tongue in cheek. It is complicated because we are on record having requested formally all the documentation to the Working Links planning and Targeting Offender model TOM. We understood the document was some 90+ pages and was refused us by Mr Wiseman several times and months back. Odd because when you are in formal talks of redundancies on a compulsory basis management would have to provide and to demonstrate their workings out. Mr Hindson in a JUM made a commitment to provide the TOM working links documents as he thought it would be fine. By doing so he then, appeared to usurp Mr. Wiseman who was previously seen as the obstruction to open talks and meaningful dialogue.

In the JUM last week Mr Hindson had gone back on that position claiming not to recall the issue and by doing so effectively Mr Wiseman was not responsible for being that barrier. Nevertheless, Mr. Hindson shall have to provide all the documentation in the future as they will most likely have to move to compulsory redundancies despite what they are claiming and from documents they plan to release this week on Friday to Middle managers and in turn to you. Please consider the issues carefully and contact any Napo official for signposting and support. Contact us all directly anytime as you consider the implications. Make sure you discover the open contradiction. For the record the Jum meeting 29 April felt like a positive meeting but after reflection I think it was more another gentle change in misdirection. While Mr Hindson took account of Working Links Way being hurried and too fast cutting too deep and poor messaging in the incredibly poor catch phrase “The Working Links Way” (I know sloganism at its absolute worst) the contrition went on. He went as far to consider positively removing the Section 188s. These formal compulsory redundancies notices had been presented to the trade unions early this year. Not just one but several. The infamous Blank S188 a precautionary notice. (What are they paying lawyers for?) Mr Hindson accepted their appalling impact on morale and our unions ability to engage more effectively with management, whilst, negotiating under the threat of their official stated position. Yet all the time they failed to comply with any legal process whilst the notices remain in force. Yes readers Unbelievable!

It remains on record that we and it was the General Secretary who invited them to withdraw the notices none of which are factually accurate or appropriate. Mr Hindson then said to us and this is the best quote of the year “as of today we are not putting people at risk of compulsory redundancy" 29 04 16.

On this basis your reps could say great! We pack up and take a watchful break? Not a chance, first off we cannot believe a word of it. There has been no withdrawal of the S188s despite several backroom e mails continuing the requested position. Also that the GS wanted to see the announcements that you will be seeing today and to reflect or comment on them. None of this has actually happened nor is it likely to despite their commitment to deliver. The issue of compulsory redundancies and the number of staff cuts currently proposed in the ridiculously short timescale by 31 03 17 which, will not be able to deliver a non-compulsory cuts programme. We have alerted the management to their hypocrisy of saying one thing and then carrying on and doing another. Also obvious and you will see it at some point is the contradiction in their non-consulted documentation. This is because the GS has not been properly facilitated with the articles in time to look effectively at the papers. Yet the management are rolling them out on Friday. Odd because they are on record with the GS for this to take place after Monday? It is all there to confuse and complicate in order to manage staff out. Take a look at the Non-compulsory commitment and determine if you think senior management are being transparent with this position? Also the non-removal of the formal S188s contradict a no compulsory pledge.

Bottom line then members, 'The Working Links Way' is not just clumsy, no, it is a calculating chaos more likely to be a deceptive and disingenuous absolutely misdirected approach to wrong foot the Unions. I hope this latest round triggers our sister unions and their softening position to galvanise and to harden up in the interests of their members.

In relation to Napo we continue to be as sceptical as we were pre the 29 4 16 JUM and will continue to alert you to the facts that the Working Links Way pushes on negatively just as it does badly and not in anyone’s fair and collective interest.

Dino Peros 

Napo Branch Chair SSW Jncc Rep

--oo00oo--

A visit to Worle HQ CRC, to meet a Working Links person.'where has everyone gone? (it used to be a hive of activity in here!) a few IT Staff, 1 HR Person and a handful of PO/PSO's all in the same open plan office.'this is it' was the reply 'but not for long because what's left will be moving to new premises to save costs, far too pricey here'. 'Right, so if you cut by 40% that is going to leave very few staff, will it be enough?'. ' we (Working Links) have our own IT, HR and admin staff to replace them at less cost'. 

'What about the operational staff working with the offenders? 'By my estimation there will end up being about 4 full time staff to work with the north Somerset offenders. That should be plenty, admin are moving to a hub with maybe some PSO's to do remote management over the phone, that will take the pressure off the rest. Some will just leave if they don't want to travel too far. That saves on redundancy costs. We decided to hang fire on that, wait to see if a few more leave. Police are taking over Impact so that will cut our costs too. You wouldn't believe what was being spent here on buildings alone!' 'What are the caseloads running at and what type of offenders? 'Not sure, you would need to get figures from CRC or just ask one of those staff over there, they can tell you'. NICE/ CARING ORGANISATION!/ watch your backs.

*******
You make a very interesting observation here about Working Link's own staff. Whilst Justice staff are being cut, are there reductions in WL's employability staff? Without saying too much of personal situation, my guess is those who previously work in WL Corporate Services weren't affected when CRC corporate staff faced EVR. Does anyone have further info?

*******
Your guess is correct. WL even hired more corporate service staff prior to Feb 15. They met with corresponding CRC corporate teams many times with detailed action plans. Just enough times for them to feel they knew what and how CRC did. They were friendly individuals - not their fault WL used this tactic. But corporate teams meeting them knew that the aim was for these new WL colleagues to take over their work. As this was share transfer and not TUPE (or COSOP mirroring TUPE as has been used in majority of previous public sector privatizations) the WL corporate roles were not at risk when it came to taking on CRCs. (That is not to say they won't be in the event of whole WL downsizing in future.) Anyhow, they learned what CRC corporate teams did and then CRC corporate staff offered and strongly encouraged to apply for VR, and mostly given this with early release dates. They were told in some teams that they should have more empathy with WL counterparts who were also unsettled due to all of the changes - unsettled yes, but their jobs were not at risk in the same way! Anyway, all completely legal, if dishonourable behaviour.