Making an Impact: Napo's AGM 2005

Director of Probation – speech to NAPO conference.

Thank you for the invitation to speak.

I am delighted to be here and consider myself to be among friends. I am also pleased to be in Wales. Particularly as the four Welsh Probation Areas have won the Public Sector Award from the Welsh Quality Association.

I have been a probation officer since 1978. For more than half of my life and for virtually all of my working life. I began as a probation officer in Stockton on Tees in the then Cleveland area. More recently I have been Chief of Lincolnshire, Deputy in London and Chief of London. I have been the Director of the NPS since April this year.

I am passionate about the NPS and believe in the work we do. When we are successful communities benefit and victims are prevented. This is important work, of significant social value. Reducing re-offending is our core business, it always has been and we are good at it. That is not to say we cant do better, I think we can, but I want you to hear a message of thanks and well done throughout this speech. The NPS is an organisation I am deeply proud of. The improvements and successes you have achieved are made even more creditable given the back drop of change that has existed over the last two years as we move towards the implementation of NOMS.

Having set the scene in a very general sense let me tell you what I want to talk about.

• Reducing re-offending, offender management, contestability and working together.
• Some key issues about the type of organisation we are.
• Key priorities we must deliver and achieve.
• NOMS future structures and consultation.

1 Reducing re-offending, offender management, contestability and working together.

When Charles Clarke gave his [arguably] first major speech on future corrections policy at the PRT conference on 19th September he may have surprised many by spending the first half of that speech talking about reducing re-offending.

He talked in detail about the contribution of the wider social policy agendas of accommodation, education, health care, employment and working with families as key and vital building blocks in turning offenders away from crime.

He effectively addressed the complex, politically difficult agenda that of being tough on the causes of crime.

It is my assessment that there is both political will and political weight behind this agenda at this time. More so than has been evident in the past and I consider it to be the agenda of paramount importance.

Seeking to access services for offenders as citizens is right and whilst some individual staff have had some success we have not, as an organisation been able to establish the principles of, for example offenders rights to access housing. The probation service are somehow always deemed to be the people who would say that wouldn’t they.

Working alongside the police and the prison service has made this slightly easier in recent years but there is [in my opinion] still a significant mountain to climb. I make no secret of the fact that I consider this agenda to be one where the ROMs could be highly influential, by intervening in other organisations commissioning processes. They are at a distance from daily service delivery and could make real progress in this area. Clearly it is a piece of work on which the Home Secretary places a high priority.

Turning to offender management, if there is anyone in this hall who does not believe in end-to-end offender management [even though we may know it rather better as case management] I would be surprised. It is a familiar concept and one many of us have aspired to one way and another over our careers. Establishing effective case management was one of the first tasks I set myself to achieve in Lincolnshire in 2001.

Offender Management is a sound approach and one I will work closely with Christine Knott to implement in the coming year. Next week I will appoint a new post of head of Offender Management in NPD. It is very pleasing to me that the argument that probation areas should deliver offender management appears to have been largely won at the centre.

I am keen to draw a distinction between the Offender Management Model and the separation of Offender Management from Interventions. They are two different things. The Offender Management Model being the far more important in my opinion. Offender management, or case management as we have known it over the years, is something we know well, do well and can implement well. The challenge of providing high quality offender management to those serving prison sentences is a change we must rise to.

Change in organisations including in the public sector is the norm. In just the last couple of months we have seen major proposals for change in health and in the police.

I am convinced that flexibility to adapt and change is where our future security lies. We will always have to respond to change either driven within the organisation requiring us to do things more efficiently and effectively, or change that is introduced to or by our external environment. For example in a world of commissioning we will need to be able to respond to the demands of commissioners, always ensuring we provide quality and value for money and therefore remain the provider of choice.

However good the past has been, and probation is due to reach its hundredth birthday, something we should celebrate, we all have to recognise that there are new demands and challenges ahead and take responsibility for delivering them.

Again in his speech to the PRT conference the Home Secretary referred to contestability. Significantly he linked the use of contestability to performance.

“The introduction of NOMS is also seeking to maximise the rehabilitative outcomes for every offender in a way that is far more consistent across the country. While some prison and probation areas have responded magnificently to these challenges and have improved, there are others which have not achieved as much as necessary. This is the reason why I am personally committed to the creation of a vibrant mixed economy with NOMS. I believe that, particularly within the voluntary and community sector, there is a large untapped resource which is keen to help us achieve the reductions in reoffending that I have described. A strong structure of commissioning and contestability in prisons and probation will create a wider range of appropriate interventions and raise the quality of offender management services across the country”.

I do not support the ideology of a market driven world in corrections, but I do not question the use of contestability as an approach to ensure the public sector [or any provider for that matter] delivers what is required. Linking contestability to performance in the way I believe Charles Clarke did was both an endorsement of probations achievements, and a challenge to deliver his agenda of change to reduce re-offending.

I do not fear contestability, because I believe in our achievements and the quality of service we provide. By developing effective partnership working between employers and trade unions at a local level I am convinced we can win any competition that comes our way.

Equally I am convinced that if we fail to work together our likelihood of winning is significantly reduced.

I know that NAPO opposes the concept of contestability and wishes to see probation maintained as a public sector function but if and when contestability is introduced we will need to work together to ensure that we retain our pre eminent status as the provider of choice of probation services.

In parallel with contestability there is also a government agenda for a wider range of providers in corrections. With 200,000 offenders on supervision in the community currently, an additional 40,000 who will come through custody plus and 250,000 reports a year there is clearly no shortage of work.

A range of voluntary, community and private sector organisations including organisations that deal with the needs of minorities want to work with us and I want to rise to this collaborative agenda, and work alongside these other organisations as partners.

The more we collaborate prior to contestability the stronger our bids will be if and when we have to make them.

NAPO has shown it is able and willing to work closely with the NPD and the employers during the last year, we don’t always agree but most times we are able to resolve our differences to a mutual level of satisfaction.

Negotiations are sometimes difficult with each side coming from entrenched positions but collectively we have shown that through openness and a willingness to listen on each side we can move forward.

It may be difficult for many of you who have not been involved on the national scene to understand how hard Rob, Judy, Jonathan and others have worked for you and your interests in recent years. There was and probably still is amongst some on the employers side a belief that NAPO is locked in the past, my experiences have been and are substantially different.

So I am confident we can work together and build on our successes to date.

2 Some key issues about the type of organisation we are.

I want to look at what we have achieved around the HR side of the business, but first let me say something about diversity.

Diversity

There are real achievements in relation to diversity, but there is no room for complacency.

Traditionally I believe the probation service has been good at talking about its commitment to diversity and rather less than good about actually doing something about it. And diversity for me is about what you do. It is about how you behave towards other people and not entirely bound up in what you say, or the way you say it.

If ever there was a wake up call then the towards race equality thematic inspection in 2001 was it. 52% of black staff said they experienced racism at the hands of offenders, 57% experienced it at the hands of their colleagues. If we were to look again now, almost 5 years later would we still find the same thing? Like you I hope not.

Accelerate our development programme for under represented groups is into its second year. It is good to note that half of the participants on the first year of the programme have achieved promotion thorough competitive processes within the first half of the programme’s life.

We have re-formed the central diversity unit within NPD and have just advertised for a permanent head. We received the HMIP’s report on racially motivated offenders and are progressing the recommendations. On the issue of membership of far right groups such as the BNP despite there being a willingness on all sides to discuss such a ban within the probation service the matter has been referred to the Cabinet office for a decision across the public sector.

We will have to work hard to meet the new legislation in respect of sexual orientation and disability but I believe there is both a will and commitment to meet this challenge. I have been particularly impressed by the joint working between NPD and NAPO in respect of assistive technology and I am pleased at the significant progress that has been made.

Job Evaluation

Employers and Unions alike acknowledge that the national package was only possible by real partnership working. We now have a scheme that has been successfully independently assessed and can be rolled out.

It allows us to benchmark all our roles and jobs against national agreed standards. The training and implementation is due to start shortly and as we move to April 2006 we will see implementation commencing in Areas.

Work Load measurement Tool

Roll out is going ahead and extra resources have just been put into the project to ensure it is delivered by April 2006. Work has been undertaken to ensure the tool is compliant with CJA 2003, this of course means that the tool has to accommodate two sets of possible orders and licences for at least the next couple of years. I must express my thanks to Nottinghamshire for putting extra resources into the design of the desk top manual for the tool.

Health and Safety

NAPO led by Pete Bowyer and John Hague have been heavily involved in the development and roll of the Health and Safety Strategy. This followed by the policy on stress and on-going work in respect of occupational health is considered to be an exemplar by the Health and Safety Executive. Health and Safety has been re-audited by internal auditors and those Areas who appeared to perform poorly have received help and advice from NPD HR.

NAO Audit of Sickness Absence

Notification that we were to be the subject of a NAO audit of sickness absence across the NPS came as something of a shock.

I will not pretend that our performance in terms of sickness absence is any where near adequate. We have the worst sickness levels in the Home Office. I am afraid arguments that probation work is stressful do not hold water when similar stressful occupational groups record much lower sickness levels. Furthermore performance varies markedly between areas, some with as few as 5 days to date this year, some running closer to 20.

The response rate to the questionnaire that the NAO sent to all staff was disappointing, and it is fair to say that NAPO and the employers are both concerned about that. Low return rates often mean that statistically it is more likely that those with a grievance are likely to be in the majority rather than those who are neutral or positive about something.

I cannot pretend I am looking forward to a Public Accounts Committee hearing but by working together to reduce sickness absence I hope we will have a good story to tell at the Spring hearing. All 42 areas have produced action plans and sickness absence has fallen from 12.3 days for 2004/5 to 11.7 for the first quarter of 2005/6. From October sickness absence has gone back into the weighted scorecard.

Pay and Reward

Real negotiations have been a long time coming.

I have made it my business to ensure Richard Cullen and Iain McIntosh have a clear mandate for these discussions.

The discussions near conclusion. I am optimistic we can reach agreement.

Modernising the NPS

I am really pleased that the trade unions have agreed to be part of the Modernisation Programme Board.

This board will look at a number of issues and in particular during its early stages will focus on the role boundary issues between POs and PSOs. I know for many of you this is a key issue and I understand the need to get this right, equating skills, knowledge and experience against the level of risk an offender poses. To do this we need to address a number of training and development issues, but there is an urgency about this agenda.

I want to stress that the probation service needs PO’s PSO’s and administrative staff, together they are the strong backbone of reducing re-offending. I have no agenda that one grade is more important than another; they are quite simply different, but all very important.

3 Key priorities we must deliver and achieve.

Let me take you briefly through our current performance:

We are achieving or exceeding the enforcement, victim contact, court report timeliness, Basic Skills Starts, Basic Skills Awards and accredited programme targets. Basic Skills Awards at 228% of the profile is a fantastic achievement. This is much more than a target - these are offenders gaining skills that stand them in good stead for employment, a huge contribution to reducing re-offending. We are also very close to achieving the target on compliance and unpaid work completions.

DTTO completions at 85% is our most problematic area, and that was always going to be a tough target to achieve.

Again there is no room for complacency but this is a very good news story. We have really established ourselves as a public sector organisation that can deliver the governments agenda, and as I have already said it is so vital that we do just that.

I may be the only one here who believes this but I am a supporter of targets. I think all organisations require clarity about what they are required to achieve and targets do that. I do not see them as a substitute for quality but firmly believe they are a part of that agenda.

In a contestability situation bidders will be judged [in my opinion] on 4 criteria. Quantity, quality, cost and innovation. Achieving our targets deals with the quantity issue and goes some way to quality.

I would not want to be heading towards contestability in an environment of failing to achieve our targets.

Probation is performing better than ever and we need to maintain and where possible, and I believe it is possible improve that performance.

I do also have some concerns and some performance issues I would like to raise with you. First my biggest concern.

The assessment of the risk of harm

If anything defines us as an organisation this is it. It is a crucial responsibility and bound up with protecting the public.

You will be aware of the three year effective supervision inspection programme which covers all 42 areas during 2003/4, 2004/5 and 2005/6.

At the end of the first year of that programme Andrew Bridges, the Chief Inspector, told my predecessor that a finding of the ESI was only about 60% of risk of harm assessments were satisfactory. Or, in other words, about 40% were not. On the basis that he had, at that time, only inspected one third of the probation areas, Andrew felt able to leave that early finding out of his annual report and press release. We did not take this sufficiently seriously and perhaps unsurprisingly a few weeks after I started in role Andrew came to see me to explain that the second years findings were much the same as the first, and (in 2005) this year he had no choice but to include it in the annual report and the press release. I was deeply concerned by this and you will be aware of the circulars that have subsequently been issued and the action I have taken. Andrew accepts that I take this issue very seriously and I can assure you that I do. I am introducing two new measures that will demonstrate improvements.

The first measure is to assure me that the quality of the work done with those cases assessed as a high risk of harm is of a good standard. The second measure is to demonstrate that the quality of our risk of harm assessments – on all cases (through sampling) is adequate.

I am sure you will agree with me about the importance of this area of our work and will work with me to improve our current performance.

Enforcement and compliance

Enforcement and compliance are key areas of work and have the attention of the Prime Minister. It is essential we maintain our current performance and we need to prepare for the new end to end enforcement targets; in particular we will have to work closely with the courts on this.

Work in the courts

I want to talk about our work in the courts. For the eighteen months I worked in London I had a great deal to do with the courts and some of you will have heard me describe them before as our strongest allies and our sharpest critics. I want probation officers back in courts; I want PSOs in courts too. The timeliness target is likely to go and be replaced with a target for a percentage of reports delivered on the day.

Visible Unpaid Work

Let me talk about visible unpaid work. I have been a passionate advocate of unpaid work, community punishment, community service over the years. I consider our staff in unpaid work to be the unsung heroes of the probation service. I make no apologies that I have been perhaps the main driver of making unpaid work visible. The tangible reality of an offender who has offended against a community, paying back to that community, is to me a simple common sense. It is a significant potential source of confidence in community sentences. And with the prison population at capacity we need confidence in community sentences now. I want to make our unpaid work indispensable to government and the visibility campaign is at the heart of that.

Let me be clear. I do not subscribe to humiliating offenders but I do believe communities should identify the work through which offenders pay back, and I do believe that where possible unpaid work should be visible at the point of delivery.

Of course I realise visibility is not always possible and let me give you an extreme example to make the point. In Durham, an area I know well, most unpaid work is visible at the point of delivery. In environmental projects the work group are identifiable through logos on vehicles, etc. I applaud this and support it. They also have offenders who work in agency projects, one example being a hospice. This is not visible and, of course, never would be. Areas have discretion to move towards increasing visibility, but visibility at the point of delivery where sensible and possible is my expectation.

I have chosen to focus on unpaid work for another reason. I consider it to be particularly vulnerable to contestability and want to strengthen it and make it indispensable with the sole intention that we remain the provider of choice if there is a contest.

Finally I want to make the point that I have made repeatedly to Chiefs and Chairs since starting as Director of Probation. Performance is a partnership, if I can help areas to deliver through the NPD I will. Your performance difficulties are my performance difficulties. Your successes can be your own if you like though I’d be pleased to share in them too.

The encouraging turnaround in London performance, of itself a real credit to London staff, is a message to us all that performance improvement is achievable.

4 NOMS future structures and consultation.

Next week the Home Secretary will publish a consultation paper on the future structures for the probation service. I know NAPO will have a view on the proposals.

Following the speech to the PRT conference the Home Secretary held a stakeholder event for a range of staff. Key NAPO staff were there including Judy, Charles Clarke made an impromptu speech towards the end of the event and was very clear again about the key agenda being reducing re-offending and he emphasised the extent to which he wanted to consult on the best structures for the future.

It will be important that NAPO respond to the consultation frankly, constructively as a trades union and in a way that builds on the success we have achieved over the recent years of the national probation service.

Conclusion

I am really proud to be Director of Probation and I want to thank the officers of NAPO and all of you who deliver probation services across England and Wales for your efforts over the last twelve months.

I could not finish without saying a personal thank you to Rob Thomas for the leadership he has shown as Chair of NAPO. Rob fights hard for NAPO and has taken a realistic view of the problems that occasionally confront us. I look forward to working with Mike McClelland and welcome Mike to his new role.

Finally on behalf of the not just me but the Service generally thanks to all of you for your commitment to the national probation service.