Damning Probation Report 2

Richard Garside writing on the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies website:-  

Time for a rethink as probation crisis deepens

The Centre's Director, Richard Garside, has today called on the government to get a grip on the problem of a rapidly deteriorating probation service. His call comes in response to the latest report from the Probation Inspectorate, into probation work in North London. The Inspectorate found that the service had deteriorated since its previous inspection in 2014, prior to the 'Transforming Rehabilitation' privatisation of probation.

The private company responsible for the Community Rehabilitation Company in north London – MTC Novo – was judged to be poor, with a 'combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight and a lack of senior management focus and control'. Some people under probation supervision 'were not seen for weeks or months, and some were lost in the system altogether'.

The Inspectorate also found that, 'despite the heroic efforts of some staff' they 'were sometimes working long hours and were often "fire-fighting" rather than enabled to deliver a professional service consistently or sufficiently well'. The public sector National Probation Service was working better, though there remained room for improvement.

Speaking today, Richard said:

"Though a report on one probation area, its findings echo similar problems found up and down the country. Something has gone badly wrong, and very quickly, with the probation service. The government needs to get a grip of the situation and re-establish probation on a coherent and sustainable footing. This could well mean doing the previously unthinkable: recreating a unified, public sector probation service, organised locally and coordinated nationally."

--oo00oo-- 

This from the BBC website:-

Public at risk over failing probation company, reports says

People are being put at "undue risk" under a new system which monitors offenders, an inspection has found. Some offenders were not seen for weeks or months while others were lost in the system altogether, a HM Inspectorate of Probation report found.

Community Rehabilitation Companies took over monitoring of medium and low-risk offenders from the government in 2014. The Chief Inspector of Probation Dame Glenys Stacey said probation services in London had deteriorated as a result.

The London CRC, which is run by private company MTCnovo, said it had made "significant progress" since the inspection was carried out.

The report said London was the worst area it had inspected this year. MTCnovo is the largest of the 21 companies set up when probation services were split between the National Probation Service and CRCs. It supervises 28,750 offenders across north London.

The report blamed a combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, poor oversight and a lack of senior management focus and control. The assessment of risk of harm posed to others, and subsequent planning, was not carried out well enough in over half of the cases inspected, it said.

In one case a man with a long history of offending was recalled to prison following an allegation of domestic abuse, before being re-released subject to post-sentence supervision. "There was no assessment in place of the risk of future domestic abuse and no flag on the database identifying him as a domestic abuse perpetrator," the report said, adding: "It was not clear where he was currently living and whether or not he was living with a partner."

Dame Glenys said: "Services are now well below what people rightly expect, and the city is more at risk as a result." The government was carrying out a comprehensive review of the probation system, Justice Minister Sam Gyimah said.

Helga Swidenbank, director of probation at MTCnovo, said the company had already introduced a plan which addressed the recommendations made in the report. She added only 40 cases were inspected, just 0.13%, of London CRC's caseload.

--oo00oo--

Finally, this article from the FT:-

Outsourced London probation services ‘putting people at risk’

Damning inspectorate report could see US firm MTCNovo lose contract

MTCNovo, the US prison services firm, could be stripped of a contract to provide probation services for offenders in London after providing such poor management that an official report warned “people are being put at risk”.

Dame Glenys Stacey, the HM Chief Inspector of Probation, said that “probation services in the north of London had deteriorated” to such an extent since MTCNovo took over that “people were more at risk as a result, and this was unacceptable”. The inspector said a “lack of senior management focus and control meant some service users were not seen for weeks or months, and some were lost in the system altogether”. It said “there had been little or no likely impact on reducing reoffending”.

The report will feed growing concerns over the privatisation of the probation service after a series of critical reports by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and HM Inspectorate of Probation.

Liz Truss, the justice secretary, has already ordered a comprehensive review into the probation system, which was partly privatised by her predecessor Chris Grayling in 2014. The Ministry of Justice confirmed on Wednesday that this was due to be completed by April. It also said it had told MTCNovo to invest a further £370,000 in temporary staffing and appointed an independent task force of probation experts to monitor performance.

Sam Gyimah, justice minister, said MTCNovo’s performance was totally unacceptable. “An urgent improvement plan is now in place and I will not hesitate to take more action if necessary.”

He said they were looking at all contracts and were carrying out a review of the probation system in England and Wales. “This will improve the quality of our probation service, putting the focus on reducing reoffending by getting offenders off drugs and into training or work.”

MTCNovo said that it was “already addressing the recommendations made in the report” as well as “legacy issues” inherited from the London Probation Trust. “We recognise the importance of independent inspection and appreciate we have a number of improvements to make.”

Seven-year probation contracts worth £3.7bn were given to companies including MTCNovo, Sodexo of France, Ingeus of Australia and Staffline, Interserve and Working Links of the UK to oversee 250,000 medium- and low-risk offenders. But probation providers complained that their contracts were loss-making and unsustainable because they were based on incorrect assumptions provided by the Ministry of Justice when they bid for the contracts two years ago.

MTCNovo runs two out of the 21 community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) set up to deliver the service, including the North London region. The London CRC is the largest in the country by contract value but work volumes — and therefore revenues — are 12 per cent lower than anticipated. MTCNovo owns a neighbouring CRC, Thames Valley, where work volumes are also 12 per cent lower than anticipated.

MTCNovo has cut front-line employee numbers by 15 per cent — broadly in line with the fall in work volumes. Staff morale is low, with vacancies running at 20 per cent, while the number of offices has been reduced from 40 to 27 raising concerns that offenders will struggle to access support, the report said.

Napo, the probation workers’ union, said “staff in London have done their utmost to make MTCNovo’s operating model work despite considerable professional reservations. It must be remembered that these are the same staff that previously delivered award-winning probation services when working for the public sector in London Probation Trust.”

It questioned whether Mr Grayling’s reforms were a “reckless ideological and politically-driven agenda, rather than an approach based on sound evidence”.

Damning Probation Report

Alan Travis writing in the Guardian:-

Privatisation of probation service has left public at greater risk – report

The public have been left more at risk by the privatisation of the probation service with some offenders not seen for weeks or months and others lost in the system altogether, according to an official watchdog.

In her most critical report yet, Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, said that a recent inspection of probation work in the north of London found a simple, unacceptable lack of management attention to whether offenders turned up to appointments and whether their offending behaviour was being challenged.

Her inspection report published on Thursday said probation services in north London have deteriorated since a community rehabilitation company took over the supervision of medium to low-risk offenders in 2014 and was now poorer than any other area that had been inspected this year.

“A combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight and a lack of senior management focus and control meant some offenders were not seen for weeks or months, and some were lost in the system altogether,” concluded the report.

Stacey said: “Delivering probation services in London is never an easy task, but services have deteriorated of late, largely due to the poor performance of the London Community Rehabilitation Company. Services are now well below what people rightly expect, and the city is more at risk as a result.”

Her highly critical report came after the justice secretary, Elizabeth Truss, acknowledged criticism of the privatised probation companies across England and Wales by demanding the rapid completion of an official review into the performance.

The London CRC, which is owned by MTCnovo, supervises 28,750 offenders, a 12% reduction in the past 12 months. The National Probation Service is responsible for a further 10,071 higher-risk offenders.

But the inspection found that caseloads for individual probation officers ranged from 50 to 100 cases each and some senior probation officers were overseeing more than 900 cases. Despite the 12% fall in the number of offenders it supervised, the London CRC still had a 20% vacancy rate and was heavily reliant on agency staff. Officers were doing little more than “firefighting” rather than prioritising those offenders who posed the most risk of harm to the public.

Many individual probation officers had themselves received no formal supervision for many months and the sickness rate trebled between May and August this year from 23 to 70 off for more than three weeks.

“The lack of a credible system to monitor the cases when responsible officers were off sick had meant that too many service users had not been seen for weeks or months and, in some cases, had been lost in the system entirely,” said the official inspection report.

The watchdog’s report judges the overall effectiveness of the London CRC as “poor” and in particular criticises a lack of awareness of domestic abuse and child safeguarding issues.

Stacey said the publicly-run National Probation Service was delivering services better in London, but with plenty of room for improvement. The quality of work was mixed, but inspectors were pleased to find that, overall, public protection work was satisfactory. The delivery of court services was not entirely without problems.

“We expect the company to make every effort now to deliver the inviolable requirements – the basics of probation – consistently well, and as quickly as possible. We welcome work begun during our inspection to begin to bring about much-needed improvements, and will be back in 2017 to check on progress,” said Stacey.

Justice minister, Sam Gyimah, responded to the inspection findings, saying: “I met senior managers at London CRC and told them this is totally unacceptable. An urgent improvement plan is now in place and I will not hesitate to take more action if necessary. We are also working closely with the mayor’s office for policing and crime.

“We are currently looking at all contracts and are carrying out a comprehensive review of the probation system in England and Wales. This will improve the quality of our probation service, putting the focus on reducing reoffending by getting offenders off drugs and into training or work. Findings from the review will be published in April.”

Napo, the probation union, said the inspectorate had confirmed that privatisation would lead to greater public risk with its most damning report to date.

Ian Lawrence, Napo general secretary, said: “This report is a damning indictment of this government’s reckless social experiment. We urgently need probation services to be reviewed and publicly scrutinised to ensure public safety, quality service delivery and value for money to the taxpayer.”

Helga Swindenbank, London CRC’s director of probation, responded to the report saying: “The number one priority for London CRC is public protection, which is at the core of all that we do. Since the Inspection, we have continued to make significant progress in reducing caseloads managed by our staff, prompt enforcement, and quality of offender supervision.

“This is all informed by the high priority we give to protecting the public. We have already taken steps to ensure that every single case is being actively managed to further protect the public. It’s important to recognise that only 40 cases were inspected, just 0.13%, of London CRC’s caseload.”

--oo00oo--

Napo Press Release:-

HMI Probation publish damning report on London CRC

HMIP London – Damning report of probation services in London says public are more at risk due to poor management by the public sector.

Napo warned the government that its reckless privatisation of probation services would lead to greater public risk. This has now been confirmed by the Inspectorate with its most damning report to date. Whilst recognising that providing outstanding probation services in London have long been challenging, this report makes it clear that there has been a significant deterioration since 2014.

The failure to meet even the basic level of service required to ensure public safety is deeply worrying. A lack of awareness of domestic violence and child safeguarding issues could not be more serious. Responsibility for this failure must rest equally with the Ministry of Justice and MTC Novo. The problems in London are reflected in other HMIP reports since privatisation across England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice were responsible for testing the operating models of all those bidding for probation contracts and assured parliament that they were all safe. That is clearly not the case and Napo is calling for an urgent review of all the contracts so that they can be fully scrutinised by Parliament. The current review, which is due to conclude in April, is neither transparent nor urgent enough. If the government is serious about addressing these issue it must engage with the professionals that know the job.

Ian Lawrence General Secretary said: “This report is a damning indictment of this Government’s reckless social experiment. Despite our continued warnings and ongoing concerns of private companies failing to provide an adequate service, the Government continues to allow these providers to preside over the destruction of what was an award winning service. We urgently need probation services to be reviewed and publically scrutinised to ensure public safety, quality service delivery and value for money to the taxpayer.”

He added: “Whilst the union welcomes MTC Novo’s attempts to address some of the issues by changing its operating model there is still much work to be done to ensure public safety and the rehabilitation of offenders is carried out effectively. Napo believes that eventually one of these contracts either in London or elsewhere is going to fail. The Minister must now engage with all stakeholders to try to rebuild the service and hold failing contracts to account.”

Napo is concerned that the Minister is failing to grasp the urgency of this issue. The union is pressing for the Justice Select Committee to intervene, and recognise that there must be a robust and effective probation service if the government is to resolve the prisons crisis.

Latest From Napo 129

What with all the excitement generated around the recent Guardian article on probation, I completely failed to clock the latest blog post from the Napo General Secretary:-   

NNC – members to be consulted on notice of withdrawal by NPS

Last Wednesday’s meeting of the National Negotiating Council (NNC) was something of a fraught affair. As largely expected, the National Probation Service indicated its intention to withdraw from the NNC and Standing Committee for Chief Officer Grades (SCCOG).

Members will have seen the report from the 2016 AGM in Cardiff where a decision was made that we should resist such a move and subsequently we have been doing all that we can to deliver on that directive. A short history of developments shows that the NPS decided well over 12 months ago that they were no longer prepared to sit alongside the CRCs at the negotiating table, and a series of meetings between the employers side and the unions have taken place to explore the potential for new bargaining machinery. Our aim throughout has been to try and defend the status quo, but to ensure that the legacy policies contained in the NNC Handbook and the National Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement would remain in force if local CRC wide agreements were agreed by our members.

As was pointed out very forcibly last week, our AGM voted that possibility down because our members, having seen how some CRC owners have been conducting themselves over their plans for achieving staff reductions (most notably a failure by some to honour Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy terms and seek variation of contracts and collective agreements without negotiation) are not to be trusted.

A formal letter was received last Friday afternoon from Sonia Crozier which was a good deal different from the original approach taken by the NPS employers last week. Whilst it confirms the intention of NPS to withdraw from the NNC, senior NOMS management have sensibly agreed to our request that this issue should be the subject of further discussion via the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service (ACAS) and that there will be an extension of the intention to withdraw until 31st January.

Where next?

Material is now being finalised for issue to members across the probation service and your Branch representatives will be in touch to organise local consultative meetings where you will have the opportunity to indicate what steps you think Napo should take next in response.

As always the timing of these developments is not helpful given the upcoming Christmas holidays, but it’s likely that we will ask you to let us have a view by mid-January, so look out for news of a meeting near you very soon, or early into the New Year, and please ensure that you make every effort to attend.

More news will be issued directly to members over the next couple of days so please check your preferred e mail address for Napo communications.

Thanks to the Guardian - and to Napo members

The previous week’s Guardian survey on the state of Britain’s probation services attracted a sizeable number of responses which led to the publication of this story last week

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/09/the-job-used-to-have-integrity-readers-on-britains-probation-services

This offers a graphic insight into the difficulties that are being faced by our members that ought to make Chris Grayling (who we see has now been let loose to reform the rail network for goodness sake) to hang his head in shame. Or better still, do as Bob Neill, a senior Tory and Chair of the Justice Committee, suggested he should do last week.

I have today written to the Justice Select Committee alerting them to another imminent and high profile report from HM Inspector of Probation that is due to be released this week and asking them for an early opportunity to provide formal evidence to follow up on the private session I attended with them recently.

We have some important political momentum on the probation question and many of you will have noted that the Secretary of State announced last week that the Probation Systems Review is expected to make a full report by April. That’s either an attempt to ignore the issues for a few months more; or as is being suggested by senior NOMS sources, an extension which will allow a root and branch look at the shambolic contracts and payment by results system.

More news when it becomes available.

Spotlight On MTCnovo

Monday saw publication of an Ofsted report into MTCnovo's running of Rainsbrook STC:-

Inspections of secure training centres 

Inspection of Rainsbrook 
Report published: 12 December 2016 

• Overall effectiveness Requires improvement 
• The safety of young people Requires improvement 
• Promoting positive behaviour Inadequate 
• The care of young people Requires improvement 
• The achievement of young people Requires improvement 
• The resettlement of young people Requires improvement 
• The health of young people Good 
• The effectiveness of leaders and managers Inadequate 

Inspection dates: 17–20 October 2016

--oo00oo--

This from the Press Association on the Care Appointments website:-

STAFF SHORTAGES UNDERMINING STABILITY AT WARWICKSHIRE YOUTH JAIL, SAY OFSTED

Staff shortages at a privately-run youth jail are undermining its stability, watchdogs have warned. Inspectors criticised "poor and problematic" arrangements when the management of Rainsbrook secure training centre transferred earlier this year. A report published by Ofsted concluded that the facility near Rugby in Warwickshire requires improvement for overall effectiveness.

Rainsbrook - one of three secure training centres in England and Wales - is designed to accommodate youngsters aged between 12 and 18, and held 55 individuals at the time of the inspection in October. MTCnovo took over management of Rainsbrook from G4S in May.

The report said: 

"Despite opportunities for liaison and planning between the new provider, MTCnovo, and the previous provider, G4S Care and Justice Services Limited, transfer arrangements were poor and problematic. Of greatest significance, the inherited staffing arrangements led to too few staff transferring to the new provider in order to ensure continuity of care for the young people within the centre. This legacy of staff shortage continues to undermine the stability of the centre as it is almost a daily challenge to ensure minimum staffing levels are met."

A number of detainees who spoke to inspectors expressed concerns that there were not enough staff on the units. Inspectors found that the new providers have responded with "speed and purpose" to recruit more personnel as a priority, and despite the staffing difficulties the vast majority of young people reported feeling safe.

Reported levels of violence at the centre remain high, the report said, with assaults against young people and staff a "regular occurrence". Over the previous six months there had been an average of 28 assaults and two fights each month. While most of the incidents of violence were "relatively minor", 14 young people and six staff sustained injuries requiring medical treatment and one young person required hospital treatment following fights and assaults.

Colin Allars, chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, said: 

"We have been and will continue to work with MTCnovo on all of the issues of concern identified within this inspection report. The report acknowledges the challenges faced by MTCnovo and that improvement is being made but that there is much more still to be done to ensure that required standards are consistently met."

Rich Gansheimer, chief executive of MTCnovo, said: 

"The report recognises that we have a strong vision and operating framework for the Centre and highlights many positive examples of good practise such as the vast majority of young people report that they feel safe at Rainsbrook. Ofsted recognise we are part way through transforming Rainsbrook and the challenges that entails. We recognise there is more to do and we look forward to implementing Ofsted's recommendations in full over the coming months."

--oo00oo--

Talking of MTCnovo and bad news, it's widely anticipated that tomorrow will see publication of the 'damning' HMI Probation report on their disastrous running of the London CRC, bar far the largest of the privatised probation contracts introduced by Chris Grayling as part of the TR omnishambles.

These sort of events are to a large degree 'stage-managed' by the MoJ who of course are free to decide when any report is published, especially if it contains bad and politically-damaging news. The report was probably written weeks ago, giving plenty of time for the MoJ Press Office to prepare the damage-limitation PR exercise. 

Publishing bad news close to Parliament rising for Christmas and when most people are well into festive preparation mode is extremely helpful, as is ensuring other important announcements are made at the same time and by other government departments. I think we can safely expect something else tomorrow, such as local government spending plans that will help keep the main media attention away from the HMI report. 

Luck of course plays its part because not even the best endeavours of the highly-paid MoJ news management team have the ability to predict what will happen tomorrow and hence the batting order for the main news media. To be honest probation has had a pretty long run of bad luck during the whole TR saga, so lets hope for a change of fortunes tomorrow. 

I'll end this with a stab at what I think the MTCnovo press release will say. It's pretty easy actually because there's a formula for any 'bad report' situation and here it is:-

'the report was ages ago; lessons have been learnt; improvements have been made; a lots has been done; there's more to do'.

Bingo! Job done. Well, it obviously needs finessing:-        

"In responding to the recent disappointing report by HM Probation Inspectorate into the operational activities of the London Community Rehabilitation Company, it should be noted that the period referred to in the report was some months ago. 

Prior to the inspection, London CRC had already identified a number of issues of concern both to staff and the Senior Management Team. Unfortunately, through no fault of ours, there have been substantial variations in workload across our cohorts, together with a number of management issues. 

However, under the leadership of Paul McDowell and a new team, our detailed and comprehensive 'Ambition 20/20' initiative has already begun to see significant performance improvements across a number of key areas and particularly addresses issues of high caseloads, offender managers' skills, leadership, managerial accountability and data integrity.

Working closely with NOMS, who are extremely supportive and content with the new improved approach we've been taking, we remain confident that progress has been made; that much has been achieved, but much remains to be done and we are in no way complacent regarding the challenges that lie ahead. 

It's unfortunate that the inspection has distracted staff and management from the vitally important business of achieving the results we all want for our service users and their needs, but we remain confident that the changes currently being implemented, and including those being planned, will see us all work positively together in building better and safer communities."

CRC Dispute Latest 17

Continued thanks to the Napo member for sending in details of what's happening with the Working Links dispute. Although a long read, it needs to be in the public domain and amply demonstrates the sheer amount of effort being expended by local union officials.

Branch report Redundancies 17+

16th November 2016
Updated 9 12 16

Forward

Dear Napo and Unison members,

This branch update report comes in 2 parts as things have been moving at a pace. The report below was delayed in sending out to members to take account of the ACAS situation and because the General Secretary and myself agreed to hold a little longer on the information position because we were scheduling a meeting with the lawyers. It was clear that Working Links continued to play games and have effectively stalled.

Having met in Bristol on the 23 11 in what appeared to us at least to be most of the management team. Their expectations were that we would have to spend the day listening to them presenting in component parts the proposed working model. What a shame they just do not appear able or willing to formally write down in one place and in order their proposal and that submitting them to the unions we should then formally respond. We could then manage all the appropriate checks and consultations process with our members before suggesting amendments or further disagreements.

We are still no further forwards on the model and as any sensible Trade Unions we presented quite properly all Health and safety Agenda requirements. Working Links having admitted to abandoning any committee or consultations on the requirements of your health and safety. No proper assessment on workloads because they openly admitted in direct question they do not have an upper workload limit on caseloads for staff. There is no misquote here these are the incredible facts of the failings and what is likely to beset Working links continued ignorance of what their responsibilities actually are to staff.

While the Unions and the General Secretary continue to wait patiently for any formal response to our serious letters dated the 13 11 and the 24th November both replies being held to ransom by a sulking “we don’t Like It” Working Links. When direct questions were put to Mr Hindson by the General Secretary Ian Lawrence we received a reply and that was duly recorded as you would expect. In closing and to tidy a few points the GS posed the same question only to receive a different emphasis in reply.

By the time the Unions in debrief had checked what was said the change in emphasis was a clear and serious concern to our negotiating side. This was noted in the letter of concerns put to Working Links on the 24th of November. We are now clear that this is never likely to be answered as we subsequently received a letter by e mail on the 5th December stating that Mr Hindson was now on Christmas leave. Mr Wiseman is now to lead on the current situation. This is an interesting position as the question of gardening leave and perhaps a forced early bath for the Working Links lead negotiator? The least said about this passing is perhaps the better part of being politic on that performance. Still there may well yet be another resurrection. What we hope for and if talks are to resume is Mr. Wiseman learns something from the way Working Links board appear to treat their representatives who fail to manage.

The sulking I mentioned above is by way of the refusal to formally reply to Napo unless we withdraw our letter of the 24th what a ridiculous position they adopt. You can draw your own conclusions as to why and what we think from what I have reported.

We are on the record for introducing the legislative requirements contained in the health safety at work act. The management appeared to be blissfully ignorant of their obligations at that point the same could not be said now from correspondence and the ACAS day last attended.

The legal Advice

Members will know that we have all been pressing for a legal position and some clear indications to all Members. You may well recall to get the employers to conduct the consultation process properly we required certain factual information. The situation has been that that Working Links have ignored all written correspondences bar a few and have given the Unions the total run-around. Poor data lack of facts or anything that could constitute a negotiation in order to ensure we could not impact on their plans. No chance to mitigate any staff losses. We have criticised their failings for squandering monies on EVR that should have been opened up equally to all staff to apply. Instead we have this staged nonsense where staff groups have been picked off and differential terms of termination have been offered. Our position is that we are looking carefully and have consulted on the legal position for the differing terms. This inequity is not consistent with the staff protections agreement and there is some good examples of employment appeals tribunals that make the working links position just plain wrong. We will continue with that head of argument for our members who are continually being misled by management. We also wait for the GS to make a further announcement on the legal response once it is received. Just on that point my thanks to all the members who have sent me factual information for the legal position and those documents have also been submitted.

In relation to the Central Arbitration Committee claim this has been passed over now as the position within other aspects of the redundancy process and sections 188 have been identified as much stronger if compulsory redundancies are actually to occur. However given the rush to get out so many members choosing to take severance, an offer not recognised in your terms and conditions is a matter for them. They have been sold well short of their entitlements. On what basis you believe your choices were properly informed or truthful is a matter for those who resigned. However I remind members that we had circulated a series of protections questions and that management had made their response to them. I would encourage anyone feeling deceived by their treatment to take a closer look at the tactics deployed.

The meeting with the lawyers was led by Victoria Phillips. Many staff may well know of Vicky and her considerable history of working with Napo and the wider Union movement. I have pasted her web link on to inform you of the calibre of the legal intellect that Ian Lawrence the General Secretary to act our advocate. The meeting was fast paced robust in parts and some tough reasoning. Yet despite the cut and thrust of some quickly dismissed but hopeful avenues the central themes were brought together and all that we are doing has been well constructed and well founded in the way we have approached the Working Links sham of consultation and zero negotiation. In our concentration of the issues we have a robust position for what we need and shortly that detail will be with us to hold firm. One thing worth a mention is that we will be making efforts to resume as a priority all health and safety sub committee activity and negotiations on health and safety at work legislative requirements in your immediate interest. Encouraged by our legal advice from one of the most experienced legal minds on these matters is nothing short of the best we can get. Taking that advice will be our Union position and despite the low brow rhetoric and clear distortions from the senior management. Anytime where matters impact negatively by compulsion on Union members we will be ready to make the fullest of challenges including all avenues of recourse.

The Branch meeting of the 7th 12

A thank you to Liz French Unison who has been something of an explosion in parts from Unison. I very much appreciate her direct style and level of tenacious engagement. Much refreshing and welcome although Working Links have not enjoyed one part of that. What is sad to report that we have an organisation that has a contract yet they are so far away in a working Trade Union relationships that they have destroyed many opportunities to work productively? It has been their chosen way and so a robust approach is the only position at this time despite their sudden leader change. That said we wait to see what signals we get to the Unions requirements and answers to the correspondence. Also to thank Unison for our joint Trade union meeting at their offices. An explanation for this has already gone out to members. That meeting saw nearly forty members attend from across DDC and we welcomed their support. We were joined by the General Secretary Ian Lawrence by a rousing and contextual telephone conference for a good period. This was welcomed and went well for our members in CP who are clearly angry and defiant to the appalling process that management have attempted to inflict upon them. Also in their attempt to destroying many of their employment terms and entitlements. Reducing their pay and failing to consult and act properly as required by the Amended and restated contract requirements. Job evaluations process and new job descriptions have all by passed the consultative process and members are encouraged by the advice we have issued and has been re issued in recent days. In the meantime members are reminded to reject any 1-1 interviews and just ask the basic question is management going to make the post redundant and then consult properly with my Union. After all that’s what you pay your subscriptions for. It was great to see our Unison colleagues and shop stewards in principled agreement and we have the makings of a strong team to move forward.

From this brief up-date on the current position I have included the previous and as yet unpublished report below for you, so that members are clearer as to where we are for now.

I will be taking a short break myself during this festive period but will be maintaining a watching brief. In both branch interests and leaving my phone on for NAPO members matters. Also keep sending us your concerns and details of the risks issues that you are experiencing and fears from the changes being suggested.

Whatever your choices over the coming periods of the Christmas break Napo Executive wish all our members well whatever you will be doing. Well see you in the new year and continue the process of protections for your jobs terms and well being.

--oo00oo--

16th November 2016

Dear Napo Members, 

It has been a difficult time for us. This is compounded by the ongoing talks at ACAS which are slow moving mainly by the tricks pulled by the contract holders. Hopefully we can start to get into a process that should look to define the legal position for us all. Before that however the route to this requires all sides to engage in conciliation and to look to form some agreement on the issues. After all this is what we, the unions, have complained to the joint secretaries about. That led to the engagement of  ACAS, as part of that resolution discovery process. 

The conduct and performance of the senior management of Working Links the company and the way in which their incredible negligence towards staff has been managed is something to behold in context of a deliberate and blatant attempts to deprive you from many of your most important employment rights. We had wanted to see a clear change in direction by insisting that Aurelius the new employers pitch up at the ACAS talks and show us clear ownership of their liabilities.  Instead we get a recently promoted and current Working links representative in the form of their new  finance director. In my view he simply repeated stock phrases he had been fed by Mr Hindson.  A fair point that Aurelius had only acquired Working links since the Summer and that he was there to deliver the Bank’s policy of cuts to staffing as the chief finance officer.  Also that he could only spare an hour and a half or so (REALLY).  Is this to generate profits to a company share group who take monies for doing nothing, while you are expected to forego your redundancy terms sign away  your pension entitlements to fund them?

Today 16th November a document by Mr Wiseman DDC in bold italics below where he makes it clear that he has been asked for clarification. I am aware Aurelius’ and working links the company were in a meeting yesterday following on from what they had been told at ACAS.  It may be  that Aurelius’ people wanted to check the status of our policy and this is what may have triggered the Mr Wiseman document today. 

In my view at least this document is nothing more than another poor attempt in the propaganda game. The employers (whoever they are Aurelius or Working Links) want to keep shovelling towards us to scare our members into signing up to the inferior and deceitful process of voluntary severance. This is a matter for you however, we have done and continue to alert you to your employment rights. (If they were not robbing you why use it?)

DDC Redundancy Policy - clarification  

I have been asked for clarification re the status of the DDC Local Redundancy Policy and felt it only right and proper to advise all staff of the position as it stands as follows:  

The current DDC Redundancy Policy remains unchanged at the time of writing and this can be accessed via the DDC Intranet page.  

However, it is also correct to state that this policy is currently under active review and a revised draft local redundancy policy is ready to issue to the local unions for consideration. The Unions were given notice of our intention to review this policy approximately 6 weeks ago and as such this is not new information.  

As a local policy this is not enshrined within the NNC agreements and can be amended through local consultation at any time.  

The current policy could have been reviewed in September 2015 but for various reasons this review has been delayed until more recently.  

I trust this clarifies the position.  

John Wiseman
Probation Director

Members you will have no doubt read this and it will have raised your concerns. However, many of you will understand it requires relentless effort to collate and record the full archive in order to gather evidence that makes the case for the unions. 

Trying to ensure the full protections of terms against the intentions of this hostile contract holder. As they have started in this vein it is reasonable to think they will continue aggressively and most likely get worse. Before then however, we have to stand firm and insist on some basic employment terms to be honoured. This includes 

i Rejection of any new job descriptions.
ii Reverting back to your roles from temporary cover
iii Reject the talk of lower pay for work as no proposals have been discussed with the unions.
iv No talks on job evaluations either.
v Do your existing job description and do not agree to any role or job variations that amount to changes in contract.
vi Be alert that dismissals in location and the drafting in by direction of staff from different areas to cover the work is a failure of their staff controls and reduction process.
vii Mobility and direction policies have not been harmonised and these need formal agreement with the Unions before staff are sent all over the place filling in gaps this cutting agenda has started to produce. This will only worsen. 

Members who know me well will not be surprised that I am constantly preparing briefings and strategy position on a range of activities. On this matter I am having to cut and paste a strategy document from a recent paper that myself and Ian Lawrence the NAPO General secretary have been working on. It formed part of our ACAS input. The matters were raised and these documents form the spine of our records to issues that have been disclosed within ACAS arena. I have cut and pasted these raw briefings document section 11 which would have been part of my response to Mr Wiseman’s letter of the 10th October. Mr Wiseman’s position today is of no real difference. 

Both Napo and Unison Trade Unions leaderships Ian Lawrence and Ben Priestly Unison recommended members sign up to the new twin organisations under the staff transfer and protections agreements. This is what happened and members rightly believed that all our collective terms on pensions and redundancies would be honoured. 

As yet it is not clear to me that the originating contracts contained a section that would have encouraged or agreed redundancies with the contractor. However if Compulsory redundancies were part of the original contracts we have the right to see them. Any argument that they are commercially sensitive is a nonsense because Working Links Aurelius have the contract now and commercial sensitivity defence to disclose it, just does not hold water! 

Besides this issue we have a right as a Trade Union joint sides to review the commercial contracts because if it is to be discovered that redundancies and to what extent they form the basis of the contract then the Government as the employer in charge at the time would have been required to consult the trades unions at that time. What we need to establish is the failure to consult lawfully and under the terms to mitigating losses. You can see why the contract managers at NOMs MOJ want to swerve this issue. 

Members, join us, help us to enforce upon the employers the sections of the agreements that protect you in the examples of their worst practices. We can be adamant to defend your rights to ensure ACAS talks make a breakthrough 

• The joint secretaries and the contract managers have finally made a determination on the head of this dispute.
• The employers must see sense and revert to appropriate terms and process to release staff; that they engage the unions properly and openly to get a change agenda that includes and brings staff with them.
• They must engage in a programme of agreed change that ensures an operational model service design that is fully tested to ensure the public is protected. 
• Redeployments must be agreed and current pay terms are fully maintained for the duration.  

Excerpt From DP Briefing note to ACAS Talks With GS Ian Lawrence. 31 10 16:

What the employers and Mr Wiseman clearly fails to understand here is their obligations under the staff transfer arrangements are a matter of protecting already established local policy. It clearly states this in 16 and makes reference to the protection as laid in the commercial contracts. For ease of reference from the DDC Amended and restated services Agreement  section 30.3 (d) The Contractor acknowledges that since the Employee Transfer Date the voluntary redundancy terms (the Voluntary Redundancy Terms) set out in Appendix B to the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections dated 29 January 2014 (the National Agreement) a copy of which is contained in Part 2 of Schedule 25 to this Agreement have been applied in all cases of voluntary redundancy of Employees (save where more beneficial terms exist). (e) The Contractor shall be entitled to effect voluntary redundancies of Employees from the Employee Transfer Date in accordance with Applicable Law. Other than where more beneficial terms exist, in all cases of voluntary redundancy of Employees the Contractor shall give effect to the Voluntary Redundancy Terms, unless agreed otherwise between the Contractor and Employee. (f) For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that an Employee of a particular Transferor had at the Employee Transfer Date a contractual entitlement to more favourable voluntary redundancy terms than the Voluntary Redundancy Terms, the Contractor will honour those original terms unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Employee.  and the Contractor shall continue to comply with the NNC and SCCOG National Agreements on Pay and Conditions of Service for all Employees including the provisions set out in (i) and (ii) above, save to the extent that Employees’ terms and conditions are renegotiated by consent 

In simple language members the items in yellow are matters that are the clear intention of the agreement of the ARSA. This is also a contractual obligation on the employers despite their claims they do not agree NAPO interpretation. In any case that is not for the union or employer to determine. The final decision can only be within a legal challenge and we all have a right to take up legal action where we are clearly suffering a detriment by a breach of the expressed contract. 

Obviously it is my absolute intention to have these issues challenged on behalf of our members within our Trade Unions activities and through the Employment Tribunal process, although I am confident that we should not have to consider actions wider than our Union at this time.  

In relation to where more beneficial terms exist Mr Wiseman is arguing that somehow our beneficial terms are not within another aspect of the National Terms yet appears to fail again to realise, BUT THEY DO EXIST! Therefore they are our beneficial terms aren’t they? They exist as he has made so many formal references to the redundancy policy now as the effective position, he cannot deny it. 

Finally members, the sections in red are the single most cruellest trick this employer has attempted to perpetrate in the treatment of you and your employment rights. There is the clause that your terms and conditions can be renegotiated, by consent. 

For those of you signing a voluntary severance arrangement without any advice or proper indication of the extent to which you are signing an agreement that terminates all of your existing rights that is a matter for you. 

For NAPO members, and I would advise all staff to join NAPO now,  not one of our terms and conditions will be negotiated away under the life of this contract while I remain your Chair of the NAPO SSW Branch. The reason why we clearly do not have to, is because they have to have our consent. That will never happen! 

Members, this is just part of our collective position please remain strong and resolute. Your Union will support you in all matters that are employment related. If you are reading this now, and not a member, ask yourself why not at this time? 

Dino Peros NAPO SSW Branch Chair  

CRC Dispute Latest 16

Dispute latest

9th December 2016

UNIONS SUSPEND INVOLVEMENT IN ACAS AND DEMAND ACTION ON HEALTH AND SAFETY

In our last members update we advised that we were awaiting a substantive response from Aurelius/Working Links in order to determine whether we were prepared to continue with the talks being brokered by ACAS.

Given that the company has still to respond to our requests we have now taken the decision that we will not be returning to ACAS until we see a constructive response to our letters of 13th and 25th November to Aurelius/Working Links.

We are grateful for the considerable efforts that ACAS officials have made so far to try and find a way forward but we do not see the point in wasting time and valuable public resources while the employers side are not demonstrating sufficient commitment to the process.

Members express anger at developments

At an extremely well attended meeting this week in Devon, members of all unions (and a number of prospective members) gathered to receive news of the difficulties that the unions have encountered in trying to find a resolution of this dispute. This centres on the plans by Aurelius/Working Links to reduce the workforce to unacceptable levels and implement an Operational Model which we maintain fails to provide the levels of safety to the public and staff.

The meeting revealed just how disillusioned staff are about the way in which the workforce has been treated and the double standards over Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy payments and the shabbily presented and inferior Voluntary Severance scheme that many people have reported they felt tricked into accepting.

The meeting also heard from a number of members based in Unpaid Work who expressed their disgust at the intended restructuring and expectation that they will be expected to deliver services for more clients with even less resources than are available now.

The unions will be organising a series of consultative meetings early in the new year to report back on a number of issues and to test the mood of members to consider all the legal options as well as the possibility of further action in defence of jobs and services.

Unions await legal advice

Meanwhile the unions are awaiting written advice on our legal options following a constructive meeting with lawyers earlier this week which considered the situation in terms of the legal requirements to consult prior to variation of individual contracts and in respect of the health and safety aspects that featured heavily at the last joint session with the employers side under the auspices of ACAS.

We are also pressing the NNC Joint Secretaries to convene a meeting in order that the parties report back to them as requested in their initial determination.

Local Health and Safety

Given the importance that we are attaching to the wellbeing of our members it has been agreed that local union reps will engage in Health and Safety activities relating specifically to joint meetings with management and the inspection of workplaces.

Members are urged to advise their local reps of any issues where they consider that their health and wellbeing and that of the public and clients is being put at risk.

The unions will be issuing further advice to members about action that you can take to ensure that your employer is made aware if you feel that you, or others, are being placed at risk.

Among the demands we have made through ACAS is that the employers side must provide guarantees that they are able to provide a safe working environment, an agreed upper caseload figure and provide us with material on aspects of the Operational Model that were promised to the unions at our last joint meeting.

Meanwhile, we express our appreciation to all union members and those who have recently decided to join a trade union, for your support during this dispute.

IAN LAWRENCE        GLYN JONES           DAVID WALTON

General Secretary      Regional Organiser  National Secretary

Napo                          UNISON                   GMB/SCOOP

Probation and the Media

Some of the comments published by the Guardian:-

The rot started when the National Probation Service was created and the links with local sentencing bodies was lost. Then came the first of the Home Office computer programs for treatment starting with the prison sex offender program where bored Prison Officers who really despised their group members lead groups of equally bored prisoners. Both sides played the game, both learned nothing except how to tick boxes. We ended up with devious articulate offenders even better at offending. It extended into field work with a variety of "measurement" tools to assess risk. It didn't, naturally but it kept NOMS happy. The Home Office never realised or didn't want to realise that you can't create a "one size fits all" treatment plan.

*****
Probation used to be a pretty good service with well trained, motivated staff who were able to establish a good rapport with offenders and often reduce recidivism. They were skilled at their interventions. Privatisation will only ever work in favour of those who make money out of it. The increased caseloads are though typical of pretty well all areas of social work which includes probation. Child protection would fare even worse in a privatised setting and would be utterly disastrous. Rather than move to full privatisation the opposite is required, a full move back to the public sector and better accountability.

******
Several friends, all very experienced with a wealth of knowledge of probation services, resigned or took early retirement rather than stay for the shambles they knew was coming with Grayling's maniacal privatisation. And so it proved. None are prepared to go back. Everyone said it was a disaster in the making but all were ignored. Because Grayling is a thick and uncomprehending as the plank in his garden gate.

*****
Ah, but the point about privatisation is that now it's someone else's fault. If a service is public and it goes to shit due to underfunding/mismanagement then there is an elected politician who is directly responsible. If you privatise a service and it goes to shit then it's the fault of:

- The private company (who will have drawn up the contract so they can't pay any meaningful penalty)
- The regulator who had to be created to monitor the private companies and is also woefully underfunded

The thing is, if the likes of G4S or Crapita were actually held to account when they fuck up after a privatisation, then how many companies would actually bid for a contract? And if that happened then you wouldn't be able to privatise things and politicians would remain responsible and - worse still - wouldn't have any nice directorships to retire to.

******
Well, that is certainly a fucking disgrace. It's our money. Seeing some politician give the "commercial confidentiality" excuse as to why I can't be allowed to know how it's being spent does make my blood boil. And, of course, private companies running public services aren't subject to Freedom of Information. Not really a level playing field, is it? If I had the energy, I'd start one of them petitions.

******
Sounds like pretty much the whole of the Criminal Justice system. I work in a Magistrates Court and in all the years I've been in the service morale has never been so low. The system is falling apart at the seams but the powers that be don't care, we are constantly reminded that we work in a "Brilliant Civil Service" - say it often enough & it will become true. No wonder so many of my colleagues are leaving. I would happily go but am only a few years away from retirement.

******
The provision of service is now actually more expensive than it was because the govt pays the private companies. Even the treasury recognised that this would be the case before the privatisation took place. It was driven through purely on ideological grounds. Work that was previously done for free through arrangements with local voluntary agencies and charities is now charged for....and guess who picks up the bill....we do as tax payers. The govt have managed to turn a service that was working and cost effective, into one that is in chaos and costs more. Genius.

******
We had a genuinely progressive, effective and respected probation service with highly professional staff and an underpinning ethos of providing a fail safe service with both compassion and control. Then they decided to apply Taylorist principles to practice and put the bean counters in charge. It's now none of those things and nobody wants to work there anymore and the prison population is at an all time high. It costs on average the same amount to incarcerate one individual as it does to employ a qualified PO even with the on costs of pension etc. You work out the logic of what they've done to save money!

******
An interesting read albeit somewhat sensationalised. Just talking to staff gives a warped view. They've clearly only spoken to the disillusioned who have not given them the facts! For example, the West York's employee saying they don't breach or recall or put through programmes etc. That is actually completely inaccurate and may say more about their personal practice/performance than what the company is actually promoting. Yes there are problems and privatisation wasn't a good thing but the problems are not really the ones highlighted in this article which could be portrayed as staff moaning. The problems are more reputational, lack of access to some key information that is needed (but held by the public sector), the fact the private companies are loss-making etc.

*******
Why is anyone surprised? Nobody but Failing Grayling even suggested this was a good idea, he refused to pilot it, awarded very long term contracts just before a General Election to make it impossible for an incoming Government to overturn, was done with no research and in the face of universal opposition from those involved in the field. It has gone utterly pear shaped exactly as Failing was warned and now Ms Truss wants a report on it. Perhaps Mhairi Black or Dennis Skinner could find 3 minutes every day they are in the House to remind Failing that he needs to come before the Speaker and explain himself.

******
Grayling giving charities and voluntary organisations peanuts to supervise 70% of newly released prisoners is a recipe for chaos. 20 contracts were given to the likes of Interserve (a construction firm) and they contract out to the next layer and so on until the likes of the YMCA here in Hull, calling themselves Turning Point, attempt to rehabilitate these men, setting them up to fail because they do not have enough money for enough staff to supervise and rehabilitate them. 4 men are placed in a small terraced house in a street of young families and elderly residents causing mayhem and misery with their alcohol and drug fuelled 24 hour anti-social behaviour. Turning Point have thrown in the towel through overwork and lack of money. The main contractors are reaping the benefit of millions of pounds. Typical Tory policy, and Grayling should have been given his marching orders years ago before being let loose on the population.

******
I don't know why the Guardian bothers to post these articles, as it is clear that people that vote Tory, are just not interested in such things. Even the ongoing reports of the privatisation of the NHS and Education, are completely ignored. The persistent Tory aim to put public services out to private companies, irrespective of past errors, and with little or no prior consultations, or risk assessments, is criminal, yet on they go, blinkered and dogmatic to the point of insanity, under the same failed ideology of saving money. Time and time again, they fail to see that private companies want profits, and it is blatantly obvious that private companies will end up doing the usual trick of employing less people, on lower wages. When the service deteriorates, they ask for more funding, or abstain from the contract all together. The lowest bidder, is all this government wants, and without any regular monitoring of services, they couldn't give a shit when it fails, as they will always have someone else to blame, and can just walk away and start the process again with another company, who think they can make money for a while.

Theresa May allows this to happen, and for all her self professed intentions to help people, she just does not know, or care what her ministers are doing. Cameron was the same, Gove and Duncan Smith, were given mandates to proceed with Tory agendas, and no one bothered to ask about the consequences. Right across the board, they have dabbled and messed with public services, cut budgets, and made workers lives a whole lot worse, all to reduce a deficit that has been so mismanaged, that their lunatic ideas, have not saved anything, but they cling to the lie, that it has. 

Any media attempts at highlighting the failings of these policies, is just met by government departments issuing scripted bullshit, noting what they plan to do and how much money they intend to throw at the problems, including the self promoted efforts they claim to have done. Efforts of only half truths that hardly ever get refuted by the only political opposition, that should know the truth.

The tragedy is that the Tories know they can get away with it, there is no effective opposition, and therefore no likely credible opponents in a general election. They assume the votes will always come their way, no matter what they do, and so, the madness will continue, the consequences will be blamed on someone, anyone else, it will never be their fault, and the party faithful will believe it. With support like that, what could go wrong?

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Firstly, I'd like to welcome some new readers to the blog and welcome back many who no doubt stopped reading as the TR omnishambles took hold and they bailed out of probation by various means. 

Since last Saturday when I highlighted the appeal for information from a journalist, viewing figures soared from the more usual 1,500 to over 4,500 on what was a mega Christmas shopping day for many. Even last Sunday readership was well up at 4,000 with the daily hit rate confirming a rising trend. With publication of the Guardian article late on Friday the hit rate yesterday was 6467, a figure not achieved since the height of the TR battle.

But this is just a curtain raiser before the big event on Thursday, timed just before the Christmas Parliamentary recess and the much-anticipated dreadful HMI report into MTCnovo's running of the London CRC contract. Politically, the stakes couldn't be much higher for an increasingly-embattled and lack-lustre Justice Secretary, so the MoJ spin machine will be into overdrive all this week in preparation. 

Expect a release of 'good news' stories every day as the highly-paid mandarins indulge in some media manipulation for an essentially lazy press and TV, who will just regurgitate the nicely pre-packed stories provided for them - in fact like this issued early today on a quiet Sunday morning:-
  
Justice secretary plans to put education at the heart of youth justice

Justice Secretary responds to ground-breaking review led by Charlie Taylor.

• Two ‘secure schools’ to be launched – alongside new measures to monitor progress in English and maths, health and behaviour.
• £15 million to boost frontline staff by 20 percent and improve safety
• Head of Operations established for youth custody – to reduce violence and drive up standards and dedicated officers responsible for overseeing young offenders’ progress.
• Bid to have every young person on an apprenticeship pathway that will continue even after they have left custody

Education and training will be put at the heart of youth justice, the Justice Secretary will announce in response to a ground-breaking review led by child behavioural expert Charlie Taylor.

Tackling security and safety issues head on, she will announce plans to invest an additional £15 million a year in youth custody - boosting front-line staff, reducing violence, and ensuring young offenders get the opportunities needed for a fresh start in life.

While the number of children in custody has fallen significantly, those who remain in the system have serious and complex needs. Tackling the factors that contribute to criminality and intervening at a young age is key to breaking the cycle of reoffending – making our streets safer and improving young people’s life chances.

Taking forward Charlie Taylor’s proposals to deliver an effective, education-led approach to custody, 2 secure schools will be launched; delivering core subjects such as English and Maths, as well as a range of work training and apprenticeship schemes to help offenders find work on release.

The majority of his recommendations are being taken forward, with immediate investment and resourcing aimed at improving safety.

The overhaul of the system will also focus on life beyond bars with a youth custody apprenticeship scheme being developed to build strong relationships with employers, ensuring that all young people are earning or learning on release.

Justice Secretary, Elizabeth Truss said:

"I am grateful to Charlie Taylor for his comprehensive and in depth review which sets out the stark issues we must tackle to help young offenders to live law-abiding lives. Prisons rightly punish people who break the law, but they should also be a place where offenders are reformed. While young people are in custody we need to make sure they get the right education and training so they can lead law abiding lives – and in turn make our streets and communities safer too. The measures I have set out today are the beginning of a series of reforms which will help us cut reoffending, make our communities safer and create a justice system that works for everyone."

Under the new system, the progress that young offenders make in education will be measured – as well as improvements in health and behaviour – to show how well establishments are doing in delivering the right teaching and training, and ensuring they are held to account.

A single Head of Operations will be established to take charge of youth custody; tackling violence, driving up performance levels and taking decisive action in the event of failures or falling standards.

Working across government, plans are being developed to ensure that when they leave custody, every child has the support of a mentor to help them sustain employment and training. This will help to ensure they do not return to a path of crime.

Charlie Taylor said:

"Education needs to be central to our response to youth offending. It is the building block on which a life free from crime can be constructed. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s plans to reform the youth justice system and focus on education and training. If children who offend are to become successful and law-abiding adults, the focus must be on improving their welfare, health and education – their life prospects – rather than simply imposing punishment."

The government’s response to Charlie Taylor’s review is the first step to reforming youth justice, with further plans to be set out in spring next year.

This response follows the publication of a comprehensive White Paper on prisons which announced 2,500 new prison officers and an addition £100 million to make prisons places of safety and reform where offenders get off drugs and get the education and skills they need to find work and turn their back on crime for good.

Plans to reform the way we manage female offenders under probation supervision will be unveiled in the New Year. 

What You Told The Guardian

Here it is:-

'The job used to have integrity': readers on Britain's probation services

An official review into the failing performance of the government’s privatisation of the probation service, has been called for by justice secretary Liz Truss. The probation service was split in 2014 into 21 private community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and a public National Probation Service (NPS), replacing the former 35 probation trusts.

Truss told MPs on Tuesday that the review into the performance of the privatised probation companies would be finished by April and would include measures to improve the service. The announcement came after highly critical reports by the chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, found companies struggled to deliver the supervision of 250,000 offenders a year.

We asked people working in probation services in the UK for their views and experiences. From low morale among staff to excessive case loads, and unsuitable risk assessments, here’s what some of them said.

Working for the publicly owned NPS: ‘Staff have no faith in leadership’

The probation trusts we used to have were rooted in localism and worked closely with partner organisations such as the police, social care and the health service. But all those relationships have been put under strain by the arrogant attitude emanating from Whitehall. Staff still believe in the job they do but have no faith in leadership.

The recent staff survey information indicated that just 3% thought that the NPS had made improvements - I think that says it all. As we’re such a small organisation we won’t get the headlines that problems in the prison service get but if things go wrong with us, the consequences for the public could be even greater.

Neil, East Midlands

‘I suffered burnout and am now on unpaid leave’

Nobody is receiving the service they should and it has become too difficult to do a good job. People are leaving and sickness levels due to stress and depression are high - it is not uncommon for people to cry at their desks.

I have been qualified as an officer for 11 years and have a range of experience, from prison work to managing a team of probation officers. However, I had a period of sick leave due to depression and am now on unpaid leave. Direct line managers and colleagues were generally supportive but despite that I have suffered burnout. I am now travelling around Europe in a motorhome with my children!

Alison, Scotland

Public protection within the NPS: ‘Staff are inexperienced, inadequately trained and very poorly paid’

We’re supposed to offer a service where high risk offenders (while on licence) are directed to reside in places where they can be monitored before being released into the community, but it’s staffed with people who are inexperienced, inadequately trained and very poorly paid. How does that facilitate public protection?

It’s been awful from the word go but I wanted to stick it out and learn something new. I’d never worked in probation before. However after almost ten years I handed in my resignation on Monday. I’ve learnt a great deal. I’ve really enjoyed the work and helping people change their lives is great. Human behaviour is very interesting and although the public might not understand probation and what it does (which is probation’s fault) all of these offenders have been victims at one time too. Society is very ill. A philosopher once said: ‘Society gets the criminals it deserves,’ and that it does.

Simone, Guildford

Working for London CRC which is privately owned by MTCnovo: ‘Excessive case loads are putting public protection at risk’

I have been a probation officer for 11 years and supervise male offenders predominately for domestic violence offences. Before privatisation I worked in a team of 11 and had a case load of between 40-50 offenders. Now I am in a team of 7 and have a caseload of 70.

I am supposed to assess their risk and compile a community sentence plan (this is where we look at the needs of the offender and work to improve their situation whilst reducing their risk. For example someone who becomes violent when drunk will need alcohol intervention as well as help addressing the reasoning behind violence such as power and control, or anger management). In the current political climate many offenders have mental health issues and there is no longer any provision for this issue as London CRC have disbanded the mental health cohort. We also find many of our clients have housing issues and benefit sanctions.

Before privatisation we used to see offenders weekly for a minimum of 16 weeks and each session would last at least a minimum of an hour. In doing so we would build a positive rapport and a thorough analysis of the offender, their needs and their risk. Now we have too many offenders and not enough time. I see my offenders on average for 20 minutes once a month. There is no minimum requirement and our managers encourage us constantly to see them less and sign post them more which is a false fallacy as community services are scarce and stretched.

Public protection is at risk here with excessive case loads but no one is monitoring this and managers do not care. We are robustly managed to hit targets but are totally missing the point. I want to resign. My job has become a tick box exercise. The people I see are damaged and often dangerous, with violent backgrounds or mental health issues and need support.

David, London

Custody within a CRC: ‘There have been a number of totally inaccurate and inappropriate risk assessments’

I’m a custody probation officer and my job is effectively the ‘motto’ of probation: protect the public, rehabilitate the offender, and enforce the law. Public protection means assessing the risks (of harm and re-offender) of any particular prisoner. Rehabilitate the offender (ideally) means ensuring they receive the most appropriate work to address their offending. Enforce the law means ensuring an offender (whether on a community order or on a prison licence) abided to his or her conditions.

Prison officers are few and far between, so we have to find one who has time, energy and the inclination, to unlock a prisoner so we can do some work. In the past, a prisoner making a request would have it dealt with appropriately. These days, I could receive umpteen emails, phone calls or being collared while out and about the prison, to tell me a prisoner needed to speak to me.

With regards to CRCs - half the time we don’t have up-to-date contact information, so cannot phone or email an outside officer for whatever reason. There have been a number of totally inaccurate and inappropriate risk assessments. One I saw involved a man who had committed GBH three times in a drunken pub fight. The CRC assessed him as a low risk of harm because he did not know any of the victims before pushing a beer glass in their faces.

Lots of people who do front-line work are having long periods of sick leave. If these stressed people stay in their jobs, they’re not going to be as effective as they should be, or once were. The whole system is collapsing and we’re just letting it happen.

Nemo, Worcestershire

Enforcement within a CRC: ‘I have given up trying to defend the indefensible’

We have lost experienced enforcement officers who would rather take redundancy than work in a job they are now ashamed of. I prosecute breaches - when anyone bothers to take any action - and am constantly having to try and explain to the courts why offenders have not been seen for months. I have given up trying to defend the indefensible. If victims of crime knew that even the paltry sentences handed down are not even carried out, how do you think they would feel? The government tells us crime is going down (which is nonsense), people just do not even bother to report it.

Taylor, Devon

Working in a senior attendance centre for a CRC: ‘I was transferred in 2014 and am yet to have any job specific training’

I have been in my current role for 12 years but directly under government bodies, and was transferred to a CRC in August 2014. My role is predominantly working face to face with low to medium risk service users and ensuring they report regularly to the centre. Myself and other colleagues have yet to have any job specific training other then a few hours being shown a few key things on their database. I have received no training in relation to health and safety. I have very little contact with supervising officers to find out how their service users are complying with their orders, and there are so many probation officers with unsafe case levels to manage.

As for the companies interest or obligation for my welfare, it is practically nonexistent. I have had one appraisal six months after I transferred, and three different line managers! I have now been told that redundancy for me is very likely, as they are attempting to make what was once a thriving sentencing option into a skeleton service.

Sadie, Exeter

Victim services within a CRC: ‘Victims are lost in the system and the reason why offenders are on probation is forgotten’

If you are a victim of crime you would like to believe that the offender will be held to account and required to complete the sentence set out at court. This is not the case - because we work in a target driven culture. The emphasis is to get the offender through the order so it can be viewed as a successful completion - and to achieve this probation officers are expected to do whatever they can. So in reality there are no national standards, you cannot breach anyone and you can’t recall anyone - offenders rule the service.

Previously an offender could have two missed appointments before they would be in breach and taken back to court now offenders get through their orders hardly setting foot in an office. Telephone calls are now classed as appointments, and any requirements such as programmes are overlooked, if they don’t want to do it then on the whole they don’t have to. We are expected to do anything and overlook everything in order to get a successful completion. The word public protection used to be the core of probation but now it’s not even considered.

The job used to have integrity, but now we are at the mercy of people who don’t actually care about victims or potential victims. Instead they are lost in the system and the very reason why offenders are on probation is forgotten.

Emmy, West Yorkshire

Working in resettlement in a CRC: ‘Before privatisation I would have been supervised by managers’

I am a probation practitioner which involves risk assessment, and going out to prison wings to interview prisoners for accommodation, benefits, finances, relationships, health and wellbeing, and behaviour. We then action the issues they have, always bearing in mind the risk posed to the public. As you can imagine some prisoners have a multitude of issues. We then have to try and find the allocated officer in the community, which is difficult now as splitting the service has made this a very tiring and arduous task.

Before the split I would have had the support of managers including supervision. Now it is nonexistent and we are expected to run innumerable caseloads. We have to offer the above support services knowing they are not working. We have been de-skilled as officers due to not having support with what we are supposed to be delivering in custody, such as interventions. We are not coping with the changes that the government have imposed and hand-in-hand with the current state of the prison, police and our service, I am fearful of the future. I am afraid for the public given that prisoners are leaving without appropriate services in place, with one of the worst hit areas being mental health. I am very aware of people leaving custody with no support because there is none.

DP, Birmingham

Support from the courts: ‘Clients are released with nothing and appear back in court for food theft’

I work in a Midlands court team. I write sentencing reports, cover criminal sentencing courts and provide information to the courts about any current cases. I interview individuals and then provide a proposal for sentence. I am supposed to look at risk levels and ways to reduce reoffending, ways to rehabilitate and ways to keep known persons and the public safe. This is nigh on impossible when we don’t even know what privately run companies are actually providing. Our team has had seven different managers over the last two years. Staff moral is at an all time low.

We basically lie when proposing sentences in our reports. We tell judges and magistrates that particular lines of work will be done when in reality, clients are never seen and go weeks without appointments. Drug and alcohol services are nigh on useless and it takes weeks to set up any type of prescription for them. Clients are released with literally nothing and nowhere to go and then appear back in court for shop theft of food - what a surprise.

Tamzin, Nottingham

Latest From Napo 128

TO: All Napo NPS members (by mail out)
CC: Napo CRC members (for information)
Branch Chairs, Vice-Chairs, Secretaries and Convenors
National Executive Committee
Family Court SEC (for information)
Napo Officers and Staff

Dear Member,

E3 Job Evaluation Appeal Results – Enforcement Officer

Napo Officers and Officials share the disappointment that members will have about the outcome of the Job Evaluation Appeal panel for the Enforcement Officer role (Band 3)

The process

In order to avoid any confusion it may help to be explicit about the process used for the appeals. As is the case for all the job evaluation outcomes, the new job roles are part of the changes being brought in by E3 and anyone currently being paid at a higher band will be covered by the protections agreed in the E3 implementation Agreement which we secured before the process began.

This was not the familiar individual process of job evaluation appeal as we are in a national process of organisational change. The Unions prepared collective appeals to be re-evaluated. For Napo, Katie Lomas (National Vice-Chair) worked with specialist practitioner Napo members to prepare appeals. We then met with the Employers to go through a process of discussion for each of the roles and had an opportunity to amend our appeal documents based on the discussions.

It is useful at this point to note that this is not an individual process where the employee's account of what their role is or will be in the future is automatically accepted. This is an employer owned process and under the scheme rules it is for the employer to dictate which duties and responsibilities they want to include in a new job description. This means that if they want a job to have a lower grade, they can remove duties and responsibilities from the role. We of course sought to challenge this during the appeal process where we and the practitioners that attended the discussions with us, worked very hard to ensure that we challenged each area where duties and responsibilities were, in the opinion of our members, missing; however it is the employers’ prerogative to remove these.

This work was done in conjunction with practicing members and took into account the wealth of information and the considerable amount of time that members had contributed in their work alongside Katie.

Where do we go from here?

Napo will work with all of our members involved to ensure that no one is expected to carry out any duties and responsibilities that have now been removed from the job description in order to achieve the new E3 specific grading. We will liaise with members impacted by the new grading to ensure that the E3 agreement is adhered to and that where applicable, members currently graded above the appeal outcomes are offered support to seek alternative roles at the appropriate grade during the three years of pay protection.

We will also work with members to ensure that we continue to raise the issues you have highlighted around new operating models and concerns about service delivery and the public safety considerations. We will of course need ongoing input from members to do this effectively, feeding back to branches, officers and officials.

Napo will work with all members involved to review the situation after 6 months of working to the new E3 job descriptions so that if, in practice, there are elements of the role that were not included in the job evaluation appeal we will apply for a re-evaluation as per the NNC policy.

We fully appreciate that this news will not be well received by our members. Be assured that Napo has done all it can to try and secure a different outcome and we have received personal testimony from members who worked with us closely during this exercise to confirm this position.

Napo will continue to challenge the operational rationale for the E3 programme and feedback through Napo branches, about its impact on members is encouraged.

Yours sincerely

CHRIS WINTERS & YVONNE PATTISON  National Co-Chairs    

KATIE LOMAS  National Vice-Chair      

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary                    

An Afternoon Matinee

I'm really glad I took time out to see this - simply a 'must see' film.