« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »
February 28, 2009
COURT REPORTS: WHAT IS THE SBC PROGRAMME?
SBC: The Carter Report published in December 2007 in its review of the Prison Service in England and Wales made a number of recommendations, and one of these was “achieving greater financial control across the prison system and standardising the way that the services provided by public and private sector prisons are specified and monitored”.
The Specification, Benchmarking and Costing programme is the result of this report. It is being applied to the probation service.
The Process of the SBC scheme is in essence the same as a Time and Motion study in outside Industry, it identifies a process, it looks at how long it takes to carry it out, the amount of resources required. This study then produces a specification, calculates how much it costs and then uses it as a benchmark for others to review the way they carry out the same task, with a view to having the same task carried out in the same amount of time, with the same resources for the same cost in all similar probation areas.
The Specification, Benchmarking and Costing programme will have an effect on the way you will be expected to work in the future. This programme is about reducing costs and one of the major costs to probation is staff’
REDUCING STAFF COSTS: There is a case for reducing staff costs across the probation service, but the last - not first - resort should be frontline service delivery. Frontline probation staff grew by 21 percent between 2002 and 2006. However, growth was concentrated among senior and management grades. The numbers of fully qualified and trainee Probation Officers fell by 9 percent.
And this is what David Hanson, Minister for Justice, stated at Napo's last AGM:
“As a department we have agreed to concentrate on streamlining the business, cutting out unnecessary overheads, trying to reduce burdens on frontline staff, stopping non-essential projects and removing any duplication of roles and responsibilities. Together, we are streamlining HQ at the centre and regional HQs to reduce costs.
Together, as I have said, we plan cut right back on our use of expensive consultants, temporary and contract staff, and improve our procurement processes so that we have more buying power to secure better deals. And together we must work hard to tighten our management overhead-which in probation has risen significantly in recent years. Probation needs good management and excellent leadership but we have to make sure that the costs of this are proportionate and not at the expense of front line delivery.”
COURT COSTINGS IN HPA: In Hampshire and the Isle of Wight courts it was apparently shown that our court costs are high relative to some other areas.(Remember the recent and last minute time and motion sheets that court staff were told to complete?) However, in HPA there is a practice of counting all FDRs that are adjourned for 15 as full reports, as SDRs. I don't know what you call this practice but it is likely to produce a misleading statistic and if those quasi-SDRs are not being reflected in the unit costs for court work then it could give the impression that court costs in HPA are higher on paper than they are in reality, as they are not reflecting the true output of court staff.
IMPACT ON RISK ASSESSMENT WORK: In Hampshire and the Isle of Wight SBC is being applied to court reports, but as yet we do not know of any other probation area that has as a benchmark such a thing as an ‘Adjourned Fast Delivery Report’ which will only afford 2.5 hours to the writer to prepare a report on cases that hitherto were deemed unsuitable for an FDR, such as domestic violence, child protection, complex cases, high risk/poor compliance and so forth. Cases that previously would have required a full OASys, and would carry a timing of 7.5 hours to complete all inquiries, risk assess and write the report. There is specific policy advice in relation to domestic violence cases which says:
“Fast Delivery Reports are not appropriate in domestic abuse cases due to the need to undertake a full risk assessment and obtain collateral information.”
It is frankly incredible after all the work that has been done to raise awareness of the risks associated with domestic violence that Hampshire is planning to downgrade the assessment of risks in this area. Two women are killed each week by violent partners. Probation officers will be allowed a mere 2.5 hours to obtain collateral information, interview the perpetrator and produce a report minus a full risk assessment. What happened to the idea of resources following risks?
CUTTING FRONTLINE STAFF: So, to reduce the number of staff required you would not need three probation officers to prepare three reports on three domestic violence perpetrators in a single day. You would just need one probation officer who would be expected to do all three reports. You can see the savings - and you can see who is paying the costs of the efficiency savings – and you can see the dangers and you must question the wisdom of such decision – making. Hampshire should be asking the victims of domestic violence whether they would feel more or less safe after these changes are imposed.
BACK TO SBC: Where is the benchmark for such a practice – that supports a lightweight approach to assessing serious risks to life and limb?. What other areas are following the Hampshire model to risk assessment?
Posted by Hampshire at 03:02 PM | Comments (0)
COURT REPORTS - MINISTRY OF JUSTICE DEFINITONS
"Pre-sentence report (PSR)/ Standard PSR – Pre-sentence reports are written reports prepared by probation staff. PSRs provide information to the sentencing court about the offender and the offence(s) committed, and they assist the court in deciding on a suitable sentence. They should provide a full risk assessment and a proposal for sentencing that takes into account the risk of harm, the likelihood of re-offending, the nature of the offence and the suitability of the offender.
Fast Delivery PSR (written) – As Standard PSR, but normally completed on day of request and must be completed within 5 days. Full risk assessment not usually required. (my italic).
Fast Delivery PSR (oral) – The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the requirement for all PSRs to be written. An oral PSR can be made when the court only requires a limited amount of information."
In Hampshire an unknown number of FDRs are not completed in 5 days. Those that go beyond 5 days are counted as full reports. This produces misleading statistics on resourcing and actual performance: what is the true number/percentage of reports completed using the FDR format? There is currently a 1.5 hour allowance for FDRs against 7.5 for a full report?
Napo has requested that the management side provide clear statistical information on this area of performance.
(Only a third of people trust official statistics, according to official statistics.
Figures from an Office for National Statistics poll of more than 1,000 adults also found the majority thought figures were manipulated for political purposes.
According to the research, just 36% of people believed official statistics were accurate. March 2008)
Posted by Hampshire at 10:51 AM | Comments (0)
February 27, 2009
NEW COURT REPORTS
We had a meeting with the management side today to discuss a new workloads agreement. We have agreed to meet again later this month. The note sent out yesterday about court reports and the virtual elimination of SDRs in the magistates court, to be replaced by an ‘Adjourned FDR’, is being actively planned by management to be implemented on 1st April.
We know members are already preoccupied with ECU matters, but these planned changes in report writing are likely to have major implications, across the Service, for professional practice. Given these proposals, Napo oficials are pessimistic about reaching an acceptable agreement.
We need to discuss this at the next branch meeting. We know as members hear about these changes they are expressing serious concerns about how on earth they can effectively and safely write reports, dealing with various issues of complexity and risk, in a massively reduced timescale.
This is a major change to working practices that will be imposed. At the branch meeting we need to examine types of lobbying that will bring home the nature of the risks inherent in these management plans. Given that Napo is unsupportive of these plans we do not anticipate, unlike ECU and parking, this is something the management side will wish consult staff on. We would welcome it if the management side was to set out these plans to the workforce and invite responses. Listening to staff should be the hallmark of a good organisation. But this is likely to be done through Powerpoint.
Observations from members would be welcomed
Posted by Hampshire at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
ECU: ADVICE
The advice that Napo has received is that if any variation of contract is issued then members, either individually or collectively, will need to register a grievance because all HPAs internal procedures have to be exhausted before other forms of action, including legal action, can be instigated. At the appropriate time members will be advised in exact terms what to do.
Just for clarification we are informed by the Kent branch that their buyout proposal was for 250 members – not a huge difference in size to Hampshire.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:57 PM | Comments (0)
February 26, 2009
NEW COURT REPORTS: DUMBING DOWN RISKS?
Some members will have heard about planned changes to court reports. This is a significant development. Workloads will be on the agenda of the next branch meeting at IB Road, Portsmouth on 13th March. We are very concerned as to the likely impact of these developments upon members’ workloads and their implications for professional practice in Hampshire. At the branch meeting we want to look at what steps we could take to raise awareness in and beyond the probation service.
The unions are involved in discussions/negotiations on a new workload model. We had hoped to reach agreement a few months ago, but the management side wanted more time to clarify some issues, including an instruction from NOMs to achieve a 70/30 split in courts reports. This would mean 70% of reports would be Fast Delivery Reports and 30% Standard Delivery. The time allowed for a Fast Delivery is currently 1.5 hours and 7.5 hours for Standard Delivery/Full Report.
Currently about 50% of court reports for the magistrates are FDRs with the figure for the crown court being around 10% though it is probably lower. The drive to increase the proportion of FDRs is about ‘efficiency savings’ – the need for fewer probation officers. (makes one wonder about the promises to protect frontline services!) If you produce fewer SDRs you will need fewer probation officers writing reports. We accept that this efficiency drive has been imposed on probation areas and they must therefore seek to raise the percentage of FDRs – in both magistrates and crown courts.
We are, however, becoming very concerned about locally driven developments in Hampshire which we believe will undermine sound assessments and risk management. So far as we know there is still a target which requires 90% of FDRs (that is of the 70/30 ratio) to be done on the same day. We do not have the figures for how many FDRs are currently done on the day in Hampshire. It is clear from a Powerpoint that is in circulation that Hampshire is not planning to aim to complete all FDRs on the same day. Rather Hampshire is introducing the ‘Adjourned FDR’. We currently have FDRs that are adjourned for up to fifteen days. The time allowance for these FDRs is 1.5 hours. However, the ‘Adjourned FDRs’ are different in that it seems the majority will be adjourned for 15 days. These are the reports, in the main, that are currently SDRs. Now, as yet there is no definitive timing allowance for these new reports, but 2.5 hours has been proposed These reports would be completed independent of OASys and post-sentence there would be a further time allowance for completion of a full OASys, including risk of harm. No definite timing yet but 1 hour has been mentioned. So, if you do the maths, an SDR with an allowance of 7.5 hours becomes an Adjourned FDR with a total allowance of 3.5 hours – if the writer does both report and OASys which will not be the norm.
It is therefore envisaged there will be three types of reports in the magistrate’s court: Orals/FDRs(same day)/Adjourned FDRs. We have heard there will be a ‘targeting matrix’ for determining whether the report should be one of the above or an SDR in the magistrates court, but what we have heard of the targeting matrix suggests that it’s a contradiction in terms. There is no point in targeting if your objective is 100%. It appears that Hampshire will not be seeking to achieve a 70/30 split in the magistrates court - they want to go all the way. This is simplistic and risky. The only reports that would be deemed as suitable for an SDR in the magistrate’s court would be those involving a sex offender assessment or requiring a psychiatric (not Mendos) report. So the full report under these plans is effectively eradicated from the magistrates court.
These are some of the types of cases that will be considered as newly suitable for an Adjourned FDR: Prolific offenders, child protection, domestic violence, hate crime, mental health issues, poor compliance/breach history, those needing appropriate adult. There would be nothing left for SDRs. There would be no scope for professional judgement. There is nothing subtle about the targeting matrix. This is better described as a ‘management directive’. A true targeting matrix would assist, not replace judgement and it would seek to achieve a 70/30 split across both magistrates and crown. It would not attempt to squeeze reports into expedient categories just to meet targets or some other expediency. On average two women a week are killed by their violent partner or ex partner (40% of all female homicides). All domestic violence cases from 1st April will be subject to dumbed downed, truncated reports.
Changes to practice of this order need to be researched, risk assessed, equality impact assessed, carefully thought through. We are told that resources should follow risk. But these plans turn that on its head. The resources will determine how much time will be spent assessing the risk. There seems to be no recognition that interviews, liaison work, background reading, risk assessment, thinking time, paperwork, box ticking, discussions with colleagues – it all takes time, but getting no sense from what we have seen that this is being properly acknowledged by senior management. All this and more can be part of report preparation. Anyone who has written a report in recent memory will know what can go into reports and these are the activities that underpin professional care. No one disputes that there were unnecessary adjournments in the past for full reports when there was always scope for fast-tracking. But then it’s not so long ago that the orthodoxy was that all reports should be underpinned by OASys which was always plain stupid. Going to the other extreme is also plain stupid and we would say it’s also engaging in unsafe practices that are more likely to expose the public of all ages to greater risk, because quality risk assessments need time and the proper tools.
In our view full reports should be ordered for those who have been convicted of a serious offence and/or serious specified offences (as defined by the CJA 2005) and have the potential to be sentenced to IPP/ or who may fall under the extended sentences legislation. This needs also to apply to those who have previous convictions for such offences in order for the Probation Service to fulfil their role in terms of Public Protection. In this instance it is the practitioner who should inform the Court whether or not the individual’s risk of causing (further) serious harm is in danger of escalating. This task can only be achieved by examining all aspects of offenders’ current lifestyle/dynamic factors thus prompting a full OASys and full report.
The preparation of full reports are also necessary for informing sentencers in respect of risk in relation to those whose convictions generate disqualification orders (offences against children/schedule one). Related to this, in considering the risk of causing serious harm a domestic violence perpetrator poses it is necessary to examine the potential future risk of harm to children and/or those considered vulnerable within the household. Only a full OASys and SDR are appropriate in these cases. A three week adjournment is also necessary for information sharing to take place between all agencies involved (i.e. Police/Social Services) if the Probation practitioners assessment is to be defensible and as accurate as possible.
Social services are consistently recognising and acknowledging the need to protect children raised within households where domestic abuse is prevalent. The Police and CPS would appear in turn to be following a policy of actively charging and pursuing prosecution against alleged perpetrators even without a victim’s testimony in cases where complaints have been withdrawn. Both agencies appear to fully acknowledge the risk of harm to vulnerable victims. The Hampshire probation direction that those convicted of domestic violence offences do not warrant a probation practitioners risk assessment skills (in terms of OASys and SDR) presents the Service with a dissenting view to that of other agencies in failing to acknowledge the seriousness of such offences and the potential for perpetrators to cause further serious harm.
The decision to use FDRs in terms of risk assessment would appear totally at odds with the guidance/circulars and protocols cascaded in recent years. For example PC54-2005 and the most recent guidance issued by the Public Protection Unit August 2008 (-Guidance to support NPS Domestic Abuse Policy and Strategy: Assessing and managing risk of harm and the use of Interventions). This latter document is explicit and identifies the FDR as wholly inappropriate in terms of assessing risk.
The only positive outcomes we can be identify in taking the decision to produce a fast delivery in lieu of a full report relate to the expediency of producing such documents and the resultant financial saving and loss of frontline posts. We can however identify innumerable potential negative outcomes which amongst others could include the loss of confidence in our ability to effectively contribute to public protection. This decision to effectively 'downgrade' the risk that such perpetrators pose could adversely affect interagency working but, perhaps more importantly, negatively affect the perception of the general public given that our own statistics demonstrate that the majority of Serious Further Offences are domestic in context In view of this full reports / full risk assessments are necessary to inform the Courts when sentencing, to inform the practitioner in assessing risk/sentence planning, and to afford the probation service the opportunity to actively promote the zero tolerance approach to domestic violence in conjunction with partnership agencies.
We understand savings have to be made and we think the 70:30 ratios (FDR/SDR) are achievable if resources are allocated effectively. We think if senior management had a better understanding of the day to day running of operations then savings could ultimately be made in other areas without practitioners being directed to compromise their practice in terms of risk assessment and public protection.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)
EMAIL BAN
The chief officer’s ban on Napo communicating directly with members through Lotus Notes remains in place. You will be aware that it was lifted recently – for three days – this was not requested, but the chief officer at the eleventh hour wanted Napo to reach members directly. That was late in the day as discussions with management had been taking place for some months. The management side was able to make full use of Lotus Notes, Napo was not. The chief officer’s concession at least established that the denial of Lotus Notes is not based on a principle. The ban is pragmatic.
We have now been told we cannot even include the email address of the Branch website in the Lotus Notes we send out to alert members to new postings on the site. The chief officer objects to the email address because – like all email addresses – it can function as a hyperlink – one click and it takes you directly to the site. The CO does not wish to facilitate your access to the site. It is quite remarkable that we are now even banned from featuring an email address!
This is not about principles – it’s about the exercise of power and control. It is about restricting the branch’s ability to communicate and organise among the union membership. We are the only branch in the country restricted in this way. There are issues of proportionality here. Were our alleged errors of such magnitude to justify a never-ending ban which will be lifted only at the convenience, and when it serves the interests, of the chief officer? Are there issues of freedom of expression to be considered? Napo notes do not abuse freedom of expression: we do not advocate shouting Fire! in crowded theatres nor do we preach hatreds. What we do is seek to represent the interests and views of our members, which are not always echoes of the messages promulgated by the management side. We do not regard the management side as always getting the balance right and therefore we proffer our views. Pluralism, dissent, call it what you want, but placing unreasonable restrictions on communications is what can be done when one side controls the communication channels and has the power to switch on and off at will.
The chief officer does not like the content of some of our notes. It was Abraham Lincoln who said you can’t please all the people all the time. We don’t always agree with the content and tone of communications that are issued on the management side. Their messages are not neutral – when they are not instructing, they are forming, shaping opinion, etc. That is what communication is about – sharing, influencing, persuading. But we would not wish to restrict the ability of the management side to communicate. That would be anti-diversity.
Some examples: there is more than one view on whether seeking trust status is a good use of scarce funds – how many jobs would be saved? How much is being spent on the trust application? We are told to the last penny about the costs of travel, but on some costs there is silence, assuming it has been costed. The management line is that there is no alternative to seeking trust status. We have not seen anything to demonstrate that trust status will be in the interests of our members – it gives no guarantees of anything. We don’t know where it will take us.
In the recent letter management side sent to some staff, after they ended the negotiations on ECU, they went into some financial details setting out the increasing deficits that Hampshire will face year on year over the next three years. Daunting sums indeed, but figures based on annual inflation of 3% which is falling and which could end up knocking millions off the forecasted deficit. On the union side we don’t really know the true position because we have not seen the books. We don’t suggest there aren’t hard decisions to take, which is why we were prepared to negotiate on ECU within the context of a fair package, but the management side need to be more open with the figures and what they are spending money on.
A final and related example: the management side are increasingly not missing an opportunity to remind staff that this or that must be done to save jobs. As with motherhood and apple pie we are all in favour of saving jobs. But ‘saving jobs’ should not be used to kill dialogue and discussion about the best ways of saving jobs. Maybe a bit more consulting on these issues would a good thing. We don’t know how many jobs would be saved by ending all bonus payments (honorariums) which are supposed to be for services that are given freely, not salaried. In the present climate how can a public service organisation justify these payments? On the one hand we may have staff losing their jobs and on the other staff receiving bonus payments.
There needs to be space for many voices and proper consultation and meaningful negotiations. We will register a formal dispute in respect of the restrictions on our use of email. We are not hopeful of any change of position locally but we hope to raise it in a national forum in due course.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:45 PM | Comments (0)
February 23, 2009
ECU - ACTION FOR MEMBERS
If you do not receive a letter from management before 2nd March, we advise members to email Christine Straw and ask for an explanation for your exclusion.
If you have at anytime received the ECU lump sum allowance indicate so in your email.
Can you also send a copy of your email to George Clarke
Would those members who, in line with Napo advice, reject the buyout also let George know.
Legal action against Hampshire Probation Area is actively under consideration for breach of contract, but we cannot go into details in this note.
Posted by Hampshire at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)
February 20, 2009
A TAINTED BUY OUT
We have received communications from members about the buy out. It seems the focus is just on the buy out. Not the loss of parking at the end of this year, nor the fact that many members are not even being offered a buy out!
We know the letters are out with their stamped addressed return envelopes, thoughtfully provided by management. The letter asks you to be a hostage to fortune while they work other things out - work in progess...
The 2nd March and so-called deadline is to put members under pressure.
You either see this for what it is or you take the money and sell out your condition of service. The Napo advice is clear: the management proposals were rejected at the last branch meetings.
They cannot get rid of ECU without a deal. We will deal but not on their unfair terms.
This puts some money in your pocket on the one hand, but it takes the money out of your pocket next year, depending on your work circumstances. And it excludes some members all together and leaves their pockets empty. The deserving and the undeserving – so much for fairness!
We are in touch with Thompsons and will have advice soon, but what needs to be understood here is that we cannot rule out anything, including all forms of action available to us.
Those eligible members need to consider what impact accepting the buy out will have on those members denied the buy out and the union as a whole.
Posted by Hampshire at 12:20 PM | Comments (0)
February 18, 2009
BUY OUTS AND SELL OUTS
Management want Napo members to sell a term and condition of employment for £750 (£600 taxed; then significant future car parking costs for some staff). Napo members at the last branch meeting voted to reject the management’s proposals. Management now say this is your final chance to sell out your condition. Not all of you, just those selected as eligible.
The letters will soon be arriving. (Expect them this weekend) Napo is recommending members not to sell their condition under the present terms. Management say it’s your last chance – well they would hardly say anything else. The fact is your term and condition warrants proper compensation within a fair package. They are never going to get rid of it for free.
The chief officer and board chair may intellectually understand the impact their proposals will have on staff - being left at the end of this year with the burden of parking costs running into hundreds of pounds. The buyout would not even buy you a permit in most parts of Hampshire. When you earn salaries far above those who are the subject of your proposals, it’s not quite the same world. The board chair was paid just under £40,000 last year for 33 days work (on the public record). A single day’s earnings being higher than the £750 buyout! And as he is the current chief executive of a Kent council - a post that attracts an annual salary of £130,000 - is it any wonder that those on higher salaries are spared the actual financial impact of their own policies.
No one is under illusions about these difficult times and they are going to become more difficult. As a union it is important to stand together collectively; alternative stances weaken. The union only exists as an entity because of its members. We – and the economic lessons are writ large at the moment - cannot afford to go for short - term ‘gains’ that end in long – term losses.
“Don't give up. Don't lose hope. Don't sell out.”
Posted by Hampshire at 06:16 PM | Comments (0)
February 17, 2009
HAMPSHIRE PROBATION AREA AND TRAVEL ALLOWANCES AND CODES AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.
The management side has chosen to withdraw from negotiations on travel allowances and parking, and impose weaker conditions on the workforce. What needs to be remembered about the negotiations is that the management side informed the unions at the outset that as a matter of principle the board wanted to end ECU - the removal of ECU was, in effect, non-negotiable. We are now at a point where some staff will be written to with the offer of a buy out of £750. And if those staff do not accept this buy out and other imposed terms, then a variation in contract will be a ‘likelihood’. (See below for an explanation of what variation means in law)
CONTRACTURAL ENTITLEMENTS.
The management side in their letter of 16th February inform staff that ‘ECU is a code and condition explicitly covered in the NNC Staff Handbook’. They then go on to say that in contrast parking is not a code and condition of service. That is true in respect of the NNC Handbook but what they omit to say is that they made it a code and condition in the local policy on ECU which they signed in 2007. This is what the policy says: ‘Car parking facilities, or reimbursement for parking charges, will be provided for all authorised Essential Car users (Para 6, ECU Policy)’
Therefore it is the union’s view that car parking facilities or reimbursements are part of a written policy – HPA’s own policy. This is the policy that we allege the chief officer unilaterally breached last year and which is currently subject to the local disputes procedures.
BUY OUT
Before we consider the Hampshire’s offer it is useful to compare some buy out figures in other probation areas:
Lancashire: £3000
Kent: £3000
Manchester: £1600
Thames Valley: £1500
Nottinghamshire £1400
Sussex: £750
Hampshire’s first offer was £500, increased to £750, but far below the going rate and though the chief officer often draws comparisons with other areas in the south-east region on other subjects, there have been no comparisons drawn with Thames Valley and Kent during recent negotiations.
Whether you view the £750 offered by Hampshire as fair or unfair in monetary terms, we believe it is unfair in contractual terms. The management letter says only those who have passed the 500 miles threshold and those who can show retrospectively that they would have qualified and passed the threshold, had the chief officer not stopped applicants last year, will be eligible for the buy out.
Remember, it’s the code and condition that is being bought, but only some staff will be compensated for the loss of their contractual right to the ECU allowance. There are staff who do not currently qualify for ECU – they may be working in courts, prisons, staff who have been directed; there will be staff who do not receive ECU because they do not reach the 500 mile threshold – but ECU entitlement is a code and condition in their contracts. Just because you are not claiming it at a particular point in time, should not mean you are therefore denied compensation for the loss of a term and condition. You may be entitled to it in the future.
We believe the basis for the buy out is flawed and unreasonable. What is striking about the managements’ somewhat tortuous letter is that though they breached the ECU policy last year in refusing to consider new applicants, the use of that same policy to effectively apply ‘means testing’ for the buy out is fundamentally unfair. When it comes to buying out a code and condition they are creating two groups of staff - the deserving and the undeserving. There is a code and condition and all staff who are threatened with removal of that condition of service should be part of any compensation plan.
In 2001 Hampshire Probation Service, as it was known then, withdrew the ECU allowance. It was challenged in court and the case was won by the claimant. This is part of what the judge said in considering the management position:
“I have been referred to the case of Kier and Williams -v- The County Council of Hereford and Worcester (1985) IRLR. In that case the defendants were in an almost identical situation to that of the claimant in this. The local authority had withdrawn essential car status for similar reasons i.e. in order to try to save money.
The claimant [probation officer] duties remain unchanged from the day he qualified as an essential car user. The only thing that changed was the interpretation the defendant put on the regulations. It is frankly difficult to see how they can logically interpret plain words of English one way for 13 years and then decide unilaterally that they mean something different.” (Johnson –v- Hampshire Probation Service, 2001)
CAR PARKING
We have argued that car parking eligibility has been made a code and condition for authorised essential car users.
One of the regular criticisms we have heard over the past few months from the chief officer is that staff do not use their vehicles enough. We know that Hampshire languishes in low performance when it comes to home visiting and that’s why the unions were supportive of a reasonable threshold mileage. We also know there are various reasons that can inhibit home visiting. But it’s not only low levels of home visiting that has affected individual travel claims, The use of hire cars and the embargo on travelling beyond 80 miles in private cars has significantly reduced claims for mileage and use of private cars, but the journeys are still being made – just not being counted.
The management want you to continue with hire cars and they would like you to make your own vehicle available on a casual basis in order to undertake the local and shorter journeys. There is a dependence on the private car for service delivery, because although we have hire cars, trains and taxis, there is no coherent travel policy in Hampshire – it is, as the management letter implies, a work in progress. It always seems to be a work in progress. The fact is management would prefer staff to make their vehicles available for work purposes. The ECU default position is casual user.
The issue of car parking has been at the forefront of negotiations. The unions have been representing the concerns of members who work in offices where there is no free car parking. Some permits are expensive. We saw the issue in terms of fairness. For those staff who have access to free office parking the buyout and casual user status may not be the sweetest pill to swallow, but for those without free parking it would be a very bitter pill as they face paying out large sums to finance parking. Staff in offices that currently have free parking need to be very mindful that there are likely to be office closures throughout this probation area in the future in the drive for ‘efficiencies’ and those who currently receive free parking are likely to be relocated to larger offices where they will not have access to office parking. When this happens you will be told that you at least have a job and everything that management does is being done to save jobs. Hard to see, though, how spending £100,000 on management consultants saves jobs.
The letter devotes about two and half pages to a proposed mechanism for operating car parking. It is over-bureaucratic and likely to be frustrating to operate and logistically confusing. It is convoluted and complex enough on paper, so it’s likely to be a real headache in practice. The unions proposed a simpler way.
We said to management that all the sacrifices are being made by staff. Management say they have compromised, but they started from very low points – for example a £500 restricted buy out. All the compromising has been done by the unions. In light of compromises and in recognition of the financial losses that members would suffer, we asked management to reciprocate goodwill. We said those without parking should be provided with permits and then they would be on a par with colleagues who have free office parking. We do not accept it would be too expensive. In fact it’s worth making the point here that we have not had much confidence in the reliability of management figures throughout our negotiations. For instance, they could not even produce up to date costings for parking permits.
When those with whom you negotiate tell you at the outset that the removal of ECU is non – negotiable you sense that getting rid of ECU becomes their over-riding concern and thereafter they don’t give proper attention to setting up alternative arrangements.
Napo representatives cannot recommend that individual members take up the offer in the current circumstances. We accept some may be tempted. It is our firm belief that the board does not want to be hindered by the checks and balances of agreements and we believe that their stance on a number of issues will become more and more aggressive if HPA becomes a trust.
Members need to decide if they are willing to be bought or willing to resist, in order to try and achieve a fairer settlement.
We are arranging to meet with Napo solicitors.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)
February 15, 2009
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - PAYMENTS TO SENIOR MANAGERS AND BOARD MEMBERS
On the 31st March 2008 this branch made a freedom of information request to HPA. We sought the following information:
A full disclosure of all payments and expenses made to all members of COMT and Board members over the past twelve months. [2007/08]
Information to show me how much each individual has claimed in mileage, fares and subsistence and also use of hire cars.
It has taken an awfully long time to get a response from the so-called ‘Open Government Unit’ of the Ministry of Justice.
Almost twelve months on and after a complaint to the Information Commissioner a letter has been received. This is the information that has been provided – and I quote:
“I am sorry for the delay in sending this response. I am now able to provide a reply to your request.
I have provided details of salary bands for the grades of members of COMT. I have also provided details of expense claims made by the board in total. I am however, unable to provide names or details of individual personal expense claims because this information is the personal data of that individual and disclosure would be unfair to that person. S40 (2) of the FOIA states that personal data relating to third parties (i.e. a party other than the person requesting the information) is exempt information if one of the conditions of S40 (3) is satisfied. It is my view that disclosure of this information would breach one or more of the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998, in respect of the fair processing of personal data because it is reasonable to expect that the Ministry of Justice will keep the details of any personal expense claims confidential.
Directors are paid on the Chief Officer's Salary Band £47,241 - £59,981
Assistant Directors are paid on the Chief Officer's Salary Grade A £40,688 - £50,144
Board Members are paid an hourly sessional rate of £ 15. 79
All figures used are as at August 2008
The total amount of additional expenses claimed for the financial year April 07 - March 08 was £5,359.23 this includes payment for a range of expenses for example, Essential Car User Allowance.”
We will be appealing this decision as we do not believe it is reasonable to apply a data protection exemption. We believe their interpretation is erroneous - this information should be in the public domain and there are many precedents, such as MPs expenses, bonus payments to BBC executives, bankers and so forth; advice from the Information Commissioner suggests that it is in the public interest for payments made to those in senior positions to be made known. We are just seeking salaries and expenses. The Information Commissioner distinguishes between this type of ‘personal information’ and home addresses which are quite rightly protected under the data protection act.
This freedom of information request relates to 14 individuals.We will seek clarification of the figure quoted for expenses as it seems low considering it also includes ECU payments, and presumably train travel , mileage claims, parking costs and subsistence. According to the text of the letter it appears that the expenses figure of £5,359 only applies to board members, yet we are not aware that board members are recipients of ECU.
There is also no mention of whether any hire cars were used, suggesting that no journeys over 80 miles were undertaken. We will be seeking receipts to corroborate and elucidate the figure provided.
Considering almost a year has passed, the information provided is incomplete and ambiguous. We are provided with the salary range for COMT, but not their expenses, though the open government letter may be poorly drafted; in respect of the board the figure seems to suggest ECU payments, and makes no mention of hire cars - to disclose use of hire cars would compromise no one’s privacy. There is also no mention of the total amount of the hourly rate paid to board members.
It took 10 months to provide this reply to a freedom of information request, which is, to say the least, disappointing. We will appeal and see what happens next…
Posted by Hampshire at 03:30 PM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2009
CUTTING TO THE BONE
We don’t know where Jack Straw gets his figures from, but he is fond of claiming, as he did in a recent speech to a Noms gathering, that the probation service has had a 70% real terms increase in probation budgets since 1997 – the advent of New Labour.
BUDGET GROWTH AND DECLINE
The Probation budget has grown by 21 percent in real terms. However, in recent years it has declined, by 9 percent in 2005-06 and 2 percent in 2006-07. The government plans further year on year budget reductions of 3 per cent per year for the next three years. Cuts of 120 million.
There is more money being spent on Noms HQ than the entire probation service - £1.012 billion against £909 million).
STAFFING
Frontline probation staff grew by 21 percent between 2002 and 2006. However, growth was concentrated among senior and management grades, as well as the less qualified Probation Service Officers. The numbers of fully qualified and trainee Probation Officers fell by 9 percent.
CASELOADS
Probation caseloads increased by 23 percent between 2002 and 2006, and by 47 percent since 1997.
The number of offenders being supervised by the Probation Service under a court order increased by 2 per cent between 2006 and 2007, to reach 150,180 in December 2007. This represents an increase of 30 per cent from 1997. The number of offenders under pre or post-release supervision also increased between 19974 and 2007. Some 94,460 people were under such supervision in December 2007, representing an increase of 32 per cent on 1997.
New work taken on by the Probation Service has proved to be far more complex, time-consuming and staff-intensive than work traditionally performed by the Service.
UNPAID OVERTIME
The research estimates that qualified Probation Officers worked nearly 30,000 unpaid hours in 2006, equivalent to one extra hour worked per day per officer. (Centre for Crime and Justice Studies)
THE FUTURE
Napo nationally estimates that cuts of 120 million to the probation budget will result in cuts to jobs. Hard to know precisely how these will individually impact on probation areas, but the range is likely to be between 13% and 33%, averaging around 20% There will be a point reached where vacancy freezing and limited recruitment of qualifying probation officers will not deliver the cuts, leading to redundancies – during a period of economic recession/depression when there is expected to be a significant increase in some criminal behaviour such as acquisitive and xenophobic crime.
We now have the prime minister attacking final salary pension schemes. In a recent letter, he said: "The Government is committed to providing public-service pension schemes that are affordable and sustainable in the long term, consistent with the principle of fairness for all taxpayers and between generations ...consider the "full range" of options to reduce the taxpayers' contribution.’
And the Tory view, "My vision over time is to move increasingly towards defined contribution rather than final-salary schemes," (David Cameron, November 2008)
We are familiar with the employers saying to the unions – you should agree to cuts in this or that if you really want to save jobs and stop redundancies. How long before those in the public services will be asked to save jobs by surrendering final salary schemes? This is not fantasy. There is widespread talk of "pension’s apartheid" and the feather bedding of the 4.6 million workers in the public sector.
It’s always those on the higher salaries telling those on lower salaries to take the cuts.
Meanwhile...the bankers look back on their golden years. 23 bankers have received honours since 1997 - four peers, seven knights, three became government ministers, two appointed to senior posts in Downing Street, 10 have been placed on eminent councils, others to quangos, etc, etc...
Probation staff perform and get...
Posted by Hampshire at 04:16 PM | Comments (0)
[NATIONAL] NAPO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIEWS ON BUDGETARY SAVINGS,
Posted by Hampshire at 09:44 AM | Comments (0)
February 13, 2009
CORRUPT PUBLIC - PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Two judges pleaded guilty on Thursday, 12 February, to accepting more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention center in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers long sentences.
Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, entered plea agreements in federal court in Scranton admitting that they took payoffs from PA Childcare and a sister company, Western PA Childcare, between 2003 and 2006.
"Your statement that I have disgraced my judgeship is true," Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court. "My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame."
Conahan, who along with Ciavarella faces up to seven years in prison, did not make any comment on the case.
When someone is sent to a detention center, the company running the facility receives money from the county government to defray the cost of incarceration. So as more children were sentenced to the detention center, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare received more money from the government, prosecutors said.
Teenagers who came before Ciavarella in juvenile court often were sentenced to detention centers for minor offenses that would typically have been classified as misdemeanors, according to the Juvenile Law Center, a Philadelphia nonprofit group.
One 17-year-old boy was sentenced to three months' detention for being in the company of another minor caught shoplifting.
Others were given similar sentences for "simple assault" resulting from a schoolyard scuffle that would normally draw a warning, a spokeswoman for the Juvenile Law Center said.
The Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation in U.S. courts. But many of the juveniles appeared before Ciavarella without an attorney because they were told by the probation service that their minor offenses didn't require one.
Marsha Levick, chief counsel for the Juvenile Law Center, estimated that of approximately 5,000 juveniles who came before Ciavarella from 2003 and 2006, between 1,000 and 2,000 received excessively harsh detention sentences. She said the center will sue the judges, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare for financial compensation for their victims.
"That judges would allow their greed to trump the rights of defendants is just obscene," Levick said.
The judges attempted to hide their income from the scheme by creating false records and routing payments through intermediaries, prosecutors said.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed Ciavarella and Conahan from their duties after federal prosecutors filed charges on January 26. The court has also appointed a judge to review all the cases involved.
Posted by Hampshire at 05:55 AM | Comments (0)
February 12, 2009
TRAVEL ALLOWANCE NEGOTIATIONS
We wish to thank all those members who attended the emergency branch meeting last Friday. We know it always requires time and effort to get to such meetings.
We have communicated our rejection of the current management offer to the chief officer and we have been promised a response before this week ends. We have been in talks with Napo nationally to seek their support which we have received.
We should be in a position next week to fully update members on the negotiations around travel allowances and proposed next steps.
PS: Please sign the petition - it's should always be about fighting for what you believe and questioning the powers that be. No more boom or bust, we have a first class financial sector...closer to home, trusts are our future...but you may not have a job!
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Save-Probation/
Posted by Hampshire at 06:59 PM | Comments (0)
PROBATION CUTS PETITION
Some of you will have noticed that the E-petition (details of which see below) has been circulated through the network of Napo Branch and NEC Email addresses. The petition was first mentioned in Napo’s own website Discussion Forum last week.
It’s a good idea and is attracting hundreds of signatures - which should make our views on the need to save Probation very visible to the government and in a public forum.
The Email network is not entirely up to date; therefore to make Napo’s reach more systematic and wholesale, we are now distributing to every Branch the details of the Petition and how members can sign up. Please note: the deadline for signing-up is 3rd March 2009.
Thanks to you all.
TIM WILSON
Chair
IMPORTANT - A petition has been started on the Downing Street website, please spread the word!!!
To sign the petition go to Number10.gov.uk, click on Communicate, then e-petitions, then Go to Number 10 e-Petitions, type probation in the 'search petitions' box. You should then see the petition 'protect the pubic and stop reducing staff within the Probation Service' - 2nd petition listed.
The petition is as follows:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Protect the public and stop reducing staffing within the Probation Service.
In the current climate when it is expected that crime will rise, it has been decided that there is to be a reduction in the Probation budget and there are to be many redundancies within the Probation Service and Probation Trusts. The Probation Service was founded to protect the public and is already understaffed. To reduce staff further puts the public at risk."
If you sign it, you are asked for your e-mail address, you will be sent an e-mail from Downing Street, click on the link in the e-mail and you will be returned to the website confirming that you have been added to the petition
This link should take to direct to the website
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Save-Probation/
Posted by Hampshire at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)
February 07, 2009
SICKNESS MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
The unions will be meeting with management and the board next week to discuss sickness management. HPA are wishing to make a significant change. Napo has prepared a paper for the meeting setting out some of the major concerns we hold about the operation of the policy and procedures. Our concerns are not theoretical: those members who have experienced the sickness management procedures thus far have invariably found the process unsettling and, in many cases, unfair. Here are Napo's concerns about the current procedures.
SICKNESS ABSENCE REVIEW MEETING (9/2/09): NAPO COMMENTS ON THE NOMS SICKNESS ABSENCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
The management of sickness absence is both a duty of care and a performance issue. Napo has no difficulty in according both parts of this equation equal importance. The 2007 sickness policy whilst emphasising the need for firm procedures also insists that such procedures must be applied fairly; the subjects of sickness management must be treated as individuals; non-discriminatory decisions must turn on the merits of each case. Napo takes this as its starting point in thinking about the treatment of its members under the sickness management policy
The management side has circulated a list of action points arising from an audit of sickness management, highlighting where HPA wishes to achieve compliance with the recommended Noms national position. It would seem the only area that HPA identifies as non-compliant relates to the use of discretion by line managers in reaching decisions about referring employees to formal hearings. The management side wishes to remove discretion and thereby require anyone who reaches the trigger of 12 days, or six separate absences, to be subject to a formal meeting. The criteria for other Stages are different, but the management’s objective is to remove discretion on the grounds this will ensure that all employees are treated in a consistent manner. Thus all those who reach triggers attend a formal meeting; the outcome of those meetings will either be an improvement notice, a referral to occupational health or no further action.
The unions and management agreed a Joint Statement in October 2007 which specifically stated that the decision whether or not to proceed to a formal hearing was subject, irrespective of trigger points, to line management discretion. We know the exercise of discretion by line managers has been affected by varying levels of influence by area and senior managers. Nonetheless there is an agreement in place.
Napo's position is to recognise that the situation around the country is variable in terms of the exercise of line manager discretion; it is also recognised that the 2007 sickness policy was poorly drafted leaving it open to interpretations as to best practice. HPA has a local agreement and is under no obligation to follow the national line. It could exercise a Trust/Board freedom to differ but management is choosing to align themselves with the advice from the centre.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE
Napo wants to see good practice in HPA and wants to be satisfied that the management of sickness absence is subject to performance expectations that are measurable. We do not look back on the past 18 months as being successful in sickness management. We don't wish to enumerate all the times we have complained of been at loggerheads with HR. All we know is that it has not been a good use of anyone’s’ time
It appears that all management wish is automatic referral to formal meetings by way of triggers, seeing this as the panacea. There are, however, things wrong with sickness management that need to be put right. There has been a lack of clarity from the outset; managers and HR have been unclear about their roles and responsibilities. There are unmet training needs; there is procedural unfairness.
We wish to see HPA achieve targets but in a way that treats employees with fairness as well as desired firmness. We believe this is achievable but it will require HPA taking a more critical look at its practice of sickness management. We want a well-managed set of sickness absence procedures that though target sensitive, can still be embedded in processes that create a positive organisational culture and operate in ways that do not needlessly patronise, alienate and aggrieve staff. There is something wrong with procedures that so often cause ill feeling.
RECORD KEEPING
The 2007 policy stresses the necessity of clear and accurate record keeping. Recently HPA’s own research concluded that only 20% of documentation was of an acceptable standard. This low performance outcome should be a source of major concern especially as it relates to an area of practice which has duty of care as one of its core elements. It is in the interests of both employer and employee to have a definite audit trail of decision-making. Actions under the policy can lead to dismissals and claims that dismissals are unfair. It is essential that all actions and events are carefully recorded. This applies to return to work interviews, information exchanges with occupational health and all other matters related to the management of sickness absence.
TEMPLATE LETTERS
Invitation: the template letter that invites an employee to a formal meeting is wrong in law. The timing of when the meeting takes place is not in the gift of the employer and its wording shows a lack of respect towards the trade union Rights of Representation. Arranging a meeting is best done in a mutual way instead of HR seeking to over-manage events. This flawed wording has been brought to the attention of HR but Napo's objections have been ignored. The template letter also states that return to work documentation will be provided ‘when available’. This is unfair and condones poor record keeping. The policy says documentation ‘must’ be provided and that in Napo’s view should be the minimum standard.
Outcome: this template letter which is sent following a formal meeting is another bone of contention. It is poorly drafted when compared to template letters which are readily accessed in the Toolkit produced by the Nom's Performance Improvement Unit in August 2008. The most objectionable part of the letter, irrespective of the outcome of the meeting, is the assertion that the employee has accepted that their level of attendance was 'unsatisfactory'. For one thing this is prejudicial to the employee if the employee holds it to be untrue. If this is something that HPA feels it must assert, then make it an assertion, not an admission by the employee. The fact is the offending statement is platitudinous. Of course absences are unsatisfactory, in the same way that being ill is unsatisfactory for the employee. It is ludicrous that, whatever the outcome of a formal meeting, HPA wishes to force an admission from the individual they agree their absence was unsatisfactory. Do HPA really see any benefit is saying this to a member of staff who has been in hospital for an operation, who has an excellent attendance record, that their absence was unsatisfactory? This is not an approach advocated in the Toolkit which comprises 170 pages of sound advice and guidance on effective attendance management.
No one enjoys being in an unhealthy condition – a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The wording in the outcome letter is indicative of the unhelpful and judgmental attitudes that seem to permeate sickness management in HPA. We should have a practice that is unpatronising, a practice that sensibly balances the interests of employer and employees.
It would be easy for HPA to raise its game by adopting the superior template letters in the toolkit.
TRAINING OF MANAGERS AND HR STAFF
Napo has spoken to numerous line managers. We do not accept that managers are well trained. Managers often struggle to make sense of what it is they are required to do. There is a lack of working knowledge of disability issues such as ‘favorable treatment’ and ‘reasonable adjustments’. HPA desire to put all staff who reach trigger point into formal stages should not overlook the duties on managers to be mindful of DDA issues. Just as pregnancy-related leave does not count towards triggers, so there is clear scope in the policy to favorably adjust the trigger in relation to disability. Disability issues always have to be considered during decision-making by managers. By seeking to remove discretion is HPA seeking to deny line managers the capacity in the future to alter the trigger point as a favorable adjustment?
Managers have attended events and briefings, but the evidence on the ground does not suggest familiarity and confidence in operating the procedures. If HPA is confident that managers are well-trained the evidence could be provided by undertaking a training needs analysis as that will show the level of organisational competence. The management of sickness absence does present new challenges for managers. Dealing with sickness absences prior to the 2007 was less regulated. There has not been sufficient attention paid to the training of managers and HR staff.
If managers felt more confident about the procedures and the various requirements arising, there may be less need for direct involvement of HR staff in formal meetings. The toolkit, p.56, discusses the role of HR and refers to the need for HR to provide advice, support and ‘intelligent notifications’ which effectively endorses the commonsense view that the reasons for the absences do matter. It is also relevant if an absence has been self – certified or certified by a doctor. There are various template letters that envisage different scenarios. It is sensible to look at the reasons for sickness absence. The toolkit, for example, gives examples of ‘outcome letters’ and in respect of ‘no further action’ refers to informal monitoring over a three month period. This is obviously intended in those cases where the absence has been viewed as reasonable and unavoidable – perhaps an operation, perhaps someone with a good attendance record. It is not proposed that at the very next absence another formal meeting is held. Informal monitoring makes eminent sense in such circumstances. HPA should really consider the costs – benefits of dogmatically resorting to formal action when it is clear to all concerned that there is no justification for a formal warning to be issued.
INFORMATION SECURITY
HPA refers to plans to enable managers to view sickness records electronically. Napo seeks reassurances here that the information will be held securely and that access to it will be controlled and subject to passwords. Medical information is classified as sensitive information under data protection. We would wish to know who would have access to this information – the line manager and HR or would all managers have access and be able to view the sickness record of any individual? In the summer of 2007 the sickness records of all staff in an office in HPA were widely accessible. It was possible for any member of staff in that office to view the sickness records of colleagues. At the time this was not though possible by HR. I make this point to illustrate concerns about information security and the necessity of clear procedures of access.
HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.
The reference in the action plan that was presented to the JNCC in January 2009 comments that the standards are integrated into the staff survey. Napo wishes to know how the standards are currently integrated and what use does HPA make of the information. We would like to know what application they may have to understanding sickness absence levels and how they are used to promote a culture of healthy attendance. Is there a current action plan?
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
We have received no complaints about the occupational health service from members – in fact our members have found OH to be fair and objective. However, several members have been aggrieved to learn from occupational health about emails sent by HR. In several cases we have had to seek disclosure of those emails and disclosure has been tardy. We have complained about HR sending inappropriate emails. In one case occupational health were asked to comment on early retirement – when the sickness policy specifically states that HPA should discuss such a possibility with the individual in advance. We also have evidence of inaccurate information being communicated to OH and with HR having to rely on ‘recollections’ why they did something – which underscores the need for clear case recording and proper case management. All matters relating to sickness absence should be recorded contemporaneously on the sickness management file. It is unsatisfactory to be given recollections which cannot be audited. We have witnessed unnecessary delays in the disclosure of occupational health reports when we know it was agreed between HR and OH that the former would distribute reports.
These various instances have caused unnecessary upset to members who have questioned the motives of HR. These events damage confidence and create suspicion. These are important data protection issues. Respect for individuals should include proper consultation, and openness and transparency – these standards cannot be reconciled with the above actions by HR staff. We seek a commitment from HPA that all staff involved in the sickness procedures will be consulted and information will be readily shared – and that all HR actions relating to individuals will be entered into the written record.
THE TOOLKIT
The toolkit is a comprehensive document. There is helpful guidance that supplements the 2007 policy. There are thoughtful template letters and advice on good communication which if adopted in HPA would, in Napo’s view, improve sickness management. At the outset the toolkit emphasises the importance of leadership to bring about a cultural changes – these require management energy and persistence.
Good leadership on sickness management also includes avoiding poor working conditions, inadequate job design, poor training and supervision – all these areas can negatively impact on building a healthy work environment.
CONCLUSIONS
Napo wants to see good attendance levels. When members are unable to attend work because of sickness we want to see that they are treated fairly and consistently by well-trained line managers. We want to see the HR role as facilitating the good operation of the procedures. Over the past 18 months we have submitted grievances on behalf of members about their treatment, grievances that have covered a range of issues. Napo listens to member’s experiences and all too often the experience of being subject to the sickness management processes has been disappointing. This is a matter of record and the Board can easily access some of the complaints that have been submitted. We have not found our working relationship with HR to be generally productive. This does not mean it cannot be more productive in the future but that can only happen if procedures work better.
You cannot take discretion out of sickness management. There will always be discretion in reaching judgements and choosing outcomes. But just moving discretion along the process will not make the process more functional. It is argued it will improve consistency but it would only improve consistency if employees could be confident that all documents are provided, that template letters are actually in line with the law and reasonably worded, that managers and HR are being fair and balanced, that HR are open and transparent in the dealings with occupational health; that when individuals request information they are not ignored for weeks. If any change in the placement of discretion was in a context of better run sickness management processes then we may see some improvement in sickness management performance. Performance means more than numeric levels of absence – it includes duty of care, non-discriminatory treatment, fairness, consistency and the promotion of a healthier working environment.
The Board should be looking to achieve a sickness management process that is based on best practice. We have cited examples of current practice in HPA and suggested improvements through better record keeping, well-trained managers and utilizing information and aids in the toolkit.
Posted by Hampshire at 01:34 PM | Comments (0)
HAMPSHIRE: BOARD TO TRUST CONSULTATIONS WITH UNIONS
The trade unions will be attending a meeting next week to discuss HPA’s plans to seek trust status. Trust status will be sought this year.
We have had one previous meeting – last July when little information was available. A further meeting planned for last October was cancelled by management. It is now intended there will be a series of meetings over the next few months.
We will keep members aware of developments. The application for trust status comes during a period of enormous uncertainty about resources. Over the next three years the probation service is facing massive reductions to its workforce. There are planned cuts of 120 million; Napo has warned, at least 6,000 staff - one in four of the profession - are set to be axed over the next three years.
The documents below set out what has occurred thus far in respect of Napo’s involvement in the trust process. We will keep you informed. The next few months are likely to be structurally important.
Here is a chronology of events since last February that have involved Napo.
The HPA 3-Year Strategy document - consultation
Napo’s response to the strategy.
Probation trust project plan.
Paper on staff transfer scheme.
Posted by Hampshire at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)
February 04, 2009
SICKNESS ABSENCE PROCEDURES - FLAWED
THEY ARE FLAWED SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU STAND YOUR GROUND.
We advise members that the letters in use by HPA that are sent to notify of a Stage 1 and then the letter that follows the Stage 1 are seriously flawed. They are not fit for purpose. And members need to be clear about this and clear that the Napo advice will be to challenge and reject such letters. We also emphasise that in the autumn of 2007 there was a Joint Statement (see below) which made it clear that referral to Stage 1 was not automatic and was conditional on a reasoned argument by the line manager. We intend to hold HPA to this agreement.
TEMPLATE LETTERS
Invitation: the template letter that invites an employee to a formal meeting is wrong in law. The timing of when the meeting takes place is not in the gift of the employer and its wording shows a lack of respect towards the trade union Rights of Representation. Arranging a meeting is best done in a mutual way instead of HR seeking to over-manage events. This flawed wording has been brought to the attention of HR but Napo's objections have been ignored. The template letter also states that return to work documentation will be provided ‘when available’. This is unfair and condones poor record keeping. The policy says documentation ‘must’ be provided and that in Napo’s view should be the minimum standard.
Outcome: The most objectionable part of this letter, irrespective of the outcome of the meeting, is the assertion that the employee has accepted that their level of attendance was 'unsatisfactory'. For one thing this is prejudicial to the employee if the employee holds it to be untrue. If this is something that HPA feels it must assert, then make it an assertion, not an admission by the employee. The fact is the offending statement is platitudinous. Of course absences are unsatisfactory, in the same way that being ill is unsatisfactory for the employee. It is ludicrous that, whatever the outcome of a formal meeting, HPA wishes to force an admission from the individual they agree their absence was unsatisfactory. Do HPA really see any benefit is saying this to a member of staff who has been in hospital for an operation, who has an excellent attendance record, that their absence was unsatisfactory?
No one enjoys being in an unhealthy condition – a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The wording in the outcome letter is indicative of the unhelpful and judgmental attitudes that seem to permeate sickness management in HPA. We should have a practice that is unpatronising, a practice that sensibly balances the interests of employer and employees.
JOINT STATEMENT FROM NAPO, UNISON AND THE CHIEF OFFICER ON THE NNC MODEL SICKNESS ABSENCE MANAGEMENT POLICY & GUIDANCE NOTES
We agree on the contents of the policy which are available under 'Absence Management' on the HR page of Lotus Notes. This joint statement is issued in order to clarify for all staff our shared understanding of how the policy will be implemented.
We acknowledge that there have been some areas where we have had differences of interpretation of the policy, and these, together with a jointly agreed statement on how they will now be taken forward, is outlined below:
1. Retrospection or count back
Retrospection, or the 'rolling 12 month period' at which the level of sickness absence could trigger a review described in paragraph 76 of the policy, has been the subject of dispute. Management interpret the rolling 12 month period as counting back 12 months from the date of next absence from the date of the policy's implementation (24 May 2007), while NAPO and UNISON do not believe that the rolling period can include any period before the date of implementation. Both parties have sought advice from national officers and whilst we looked at local compromises it was not possible to reach one. The unions will therefore continue to challenge the legitimacy of counting sickness absence retrospective to 25 May 2007.
2. Counting of absences over 21 days within the short term policy
The counting of absences over 21 days (defined as long term absences) with short term absences in determining whether an individual has met a trigger point is also subject to dispute. We acknowledge that there is a lack of clarity in the policy in this respect. We have agreed that the matter be referred jointly to the NNC for their view. In the meantime, it is noted that management intend to count all absences towards a trigger (and the union position on this is noted). We agree that managers will use discretion on whether to discount an absence over 21 days where this is appropriate in their judgement.
3. Status of the policy
We agree with the contents of the national model sickness absence management policy, where we disagree, see above.
4. Operation of the policy
We agree that the policy should operate as follows: there are two parts to the policy – the first deals with short-term absences and the second long-term. There has never been disagreement over the management of long-term absences – the issues relate to the short-term procedure.
We affirm the necessity of following up all absences, with a return to work interview. There is clear guidance on how these should be conducted – at para 43 in the policy and a fuller account in policy annex B.
We agree that the Return to work notification form will be used as a tool both to record the outcome of that meeting as at present; and in the event of a trigger point having been reached, to record a manager’s decision as to whether a Stage 1 meeting within the terms of the policy is required (see para 43–50 and 71–74).
In respect of possible action under stage one, the policy contains trigger points for short-term absences of either 6 separate absences or 12 days in a twelve month rolling period (pro rata for part time staff). We agree that on reaching a trigger point it is the responsibility of the line manager, who may consult with HR, to make a judgement, based on the individual circumstances of each case, as to whether the sickness absence warrants referral to the formal unsatisfactory attendance procedure.
In the event of moving to stage one (or later stages) the line manager will write to the employee and the letter will ‘set out details of the unsatisfactory attendance, which must include copies of all relevant documentation, e.g. copies of return to work interview notes and OHS advice’ (see para 81-86 for stage one).
5. Equality impact assessment
The Sickness Absence Management policy will be impact assessed. The impact assessment will be undertaken by the Diversity Manager and will use data gathered since the implementation of the new policy to assess its impact on staff, particularly from groups protected within equality legislation. This will be completed by the end of November 2007. The assessment will be reviewed by the equalities committiee at its next meeting, and will be published on the Diversity web page.
Posted by Hampshire at 07:11 PM | Comments (0)
February 03, 2009
THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
In the prison inspectorate annual report Anne Owers highlights a number of areas for alarm:
* Growing concerns about safety, particularly in dispersal prisons and young offender institutions, and rates of self-harm among women
* Unsuitable, cramped or unhygienic accommodation in some prisons
* Difficulties in complying with duties under the Disability Discrimination Act, and other equality duties
* Low activity levels in too many training prisons
* The growing problem of alcohol misuse and the limited investment in this in prisons or the community
* The potential effect of the recession on prisoners’ employment and resettlement prospects.
She identifies key lessons for government:
* To avoid ill-considered and unresourced legislation of the kind that produced the indeterminate sentence for public protections
* To invest in alternatives to prison for those who do not need to be, and should not be, there – more work is needed to provide for those with mental health problems, and to implement the Corston review on women
* To develop a well-grounded, clearly articulated, and properly resourced strategy for the medium and long term health of both prisons and probation that builds on progress made since the 1980s and 1990s in making prisons safer, more secure, and more likely to rehabilitate those within them.
* To take note of evidence that shows that small prisons perform better than large ones and that resettlement is best carried out in prisons close to home – shown both in the annual report and in an in-depth research study published today on the Inspectorate’s website.
http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmiprisons/about-us/annual-reports.html/?view=Standard
Posted by Hampshire at 08:49 PM | Comments (0)