« February 2009 | Main | April 2009 »
March 30, 2009
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT PARKING?
BACKGROUND
We have received a number of communications from members asking what the union intend to do about the parking proposals recently issued by HPA. Branch officials will do exactly what they were mandated to do by members at the emergency branch meeting on 6th February 2009. At this meeting ECU and parking proposals were debated. Although our initial position was to seek;
• ECU buy out for £750,
• Buy out to be extended to any staff member who may be eligible for ECU now or in the future,
• Free parking for any staff member who requires a vehicle for operational duties.
Subsequent negotiations with HPA regarding a 3 year deal resulted in a proposal to broadly (see previous Napo notes);
• offer the buy out to staff members who were currently eligible for ECU,
• free parking for operational staff who undertook at least 500 miles per year
For members, the issue of car parking had been at the forefront of negotiations. The unions represent 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 have been the sweetest pill to swallow, but for those without free parking it would have been a very bitter pill as they faced paying out large sums to finance parking.
Unfortunately, HPA’s subsequent proposal specified that at any time after December 2009 management reserved the right to review the agreement without consultation. Members acknowledged that this effectively negated any agreed proposal, enabling management to change policy at will without consultation with staff. This proposal was rejected by members.
Members and officials regarded ECU and in particular, car parking, as an issue of fairness. We feel that Hampshire Napo (officials representing members) had made a fair and reasonable offer.
Subsequently management chose to make an offer directly to staff. This offer had not been agreed with the unions (officials and members). However, staff chose to accept the offer and in doing so individually agreed to the introduction of a;
“cross-County policy on parking [to].. be introduced from 1st June 2009. Unless parking is protected, therefore, no parking permits will be renewed after 31st March unless the individual qualifies under the proposed new terms.” (letter to staff dated 4th March 2009)
CURRENT PROPOSALS
We are aware that some staff have received notifications regarding the parking arrangements to be implemented from 1st April 2009. We are also aware that these changes are premised on a draft Travel Policy proposal issued last week. This draft proposal has not been discussed with unions. We have a meeting planned to discuss car parking arrangements however branch officials will not negotiate on the draft policy as presented. Officials are mandated to negotiate on our original proposals whereby all staff members are treated fairly and reasonably.
The proposal issued last week appears to propose a complicated bureaucratic scheme that is elitist and fundamentally flawed. Designated roles serve senior management interests, operational staff are undermined, disciplinary action is threatened if staff do not comply, the list goes on.
Hampshire Napo (officials and members – you) will base any further negotiations on our fair and reasonable offer as outlined in our initial proposals. Should management decide to unilaterally implement a non-negotiated proposal then we, as a union must decide what to do.
So in answer to the many queries regarding what the union are going to do about parking; branch officials will continue to negotiate with management around our initial proposals. We will not negotiate on a flawed, undemocratic and elitist proposal that management seem to be determined to impose on staff. We will continue to work to serve our members based on the mandates we are given. Fundamentally branch officials serve the membership so the answer is really;
Members: What are YOU going to do about parking?
Posted by Hampshire at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)
March 28, 2009
WORKLOADS
Workloads
We have posted several notes recently on workloads and, in particular, the proposals to achieve a 70/30 split in favour of fast delivery reports. We have had two meetings with the management side and we are prepared to meet again to see if an agreement can be reached. The history of the 70/30 split is set out in recent notes - see 21st March: WORKLOADS: WHERE ARE WE?
In advance of an agreement there are 'briefing/training' events taking place to introduce staff to the New FDR. The need to increase FDRs is driven by budgetary factors though it seems opportunities are not being missed to highlight failings in SDRs – such as being ‘overlong’, though at one time they were required to be ‘comprehensive’. Turning on a sixpence is almost the norm in the modern probation service.
We already achieve about 50% of FDRs in the magistrates' courts – so the introduction of the FDR was no bad thing and we know many cases can be expedited. In fact before the arrival of OASys many cases were expedited in the courts, notably through the use of oral reports in magistrates and crown courts. It was the protocol associated with OASys that required all court reports to go through the rigors of 'one size fits all' assessments. OASys is not quite the sacred cow it once was.
Targeting Cases
Napo has no objection to seeking to maximise the use of FDRs. However, in the interests of good risk management the FDR format is not suitable for all cases. The management side have revised their ‘targeting matrix’ and though staff attending briefing events are being told that ‘less serious’ domestic abuse cases can be done via an FDR, the director of offender management has confirmed that all domestic abuse cases will be subject to full reports.
Less straightforward will be cases of violence, hate crimes, mental health and learning disability. There will be cases that are complex. In seeking to increase the ratio of FDRs we will be drawing in more of the ‘higher tariff’ cases. For example, there will be a need to target the ‘less serious’ mental health cases for FDRs. According to the management side, ‘discretion will need to be applied by court officers in these cases’.
Written Guidelines
We are asking the management side to provide written guidelines, in addition to a targeting matrix, that court staff can use to identify ‘less serious’ cases. We also seek clarity as to who will be using this discretion – POs, PSOs or will the process be micromanaged by SPOs? We seek written guidelines because these will assist in achieving as much consistency as possible in identifying ‘less serious’ cases. We need more than word of mouth to achieve consistency in practice.
Accountability
At the present time all cases are risk screened using the OASys risk screening tool. Management guidance on using this tool in respect of higher tariff cases should be considered. This should be, in our view, the key document where the judgement on report format – FDR or SDR - should be made. This screening tool requires a signature. If line managers have cause to countermand the discretion exercised by court officers then this needs to be formally recorded and supported by their signature in the risk screening document.
Timings.
The FDR originally attracted a timing of 1.5 hours. The FDR is intended to be a brief report – it is not a default SDR. With the advent of the unpaid work assessment the management side agreed that the timing should increase to 1.75 hours, however we are now being informed that at the briefing events for court reports the FDR timing has been reduced to 1.25 hours. We do not regard this figure as credible. This area also illustrates the inconsistencies that arise without clear guidelines - In Southampton all cases must include an unpaid work assessment, but in Portsmouth an assessment is only required when unpaid work is being proposed. This is quirky practice.
Realistic timings are critical. We do require the management side to show that higher tariff cases can be undertaken in an agreed time frame. There are duty of care issues here. We do not wish to see staff being subject to unreasonable demands, nor complex cases fast tracked without being appropriately and safely assessed.
Process Mapping
When we met with management a month ago we asked for evidence of their work on timings. We were told there had been piloting work: quality sampling of FDRs and process mapping data acquired through use of the new FDR template on a range of cases. We have asked for this information, but thus far it has not been shared. This process needs openness and transparency. The management side should share this information with the unions.
Training.
The court report training has been referred to as 'briefings' as it’s difficult to see what new skills are being passed on. The FDR has been with us for some time and most are familiar with its format. The key issue is targeting and safe practice. We need clear written guidelines which should have been disseminated at the briefings.
An anticipated increase in court reports needs to take account of the IT skills of staff. There seems to be an assumption that everyone can touch type, or type efficiently, when some staff struggle with keyboards. In the interests of diversity and with regard to duty of care there should be an audit of IT skills in this area. Some staff will struggle without keyboard training and support.
Impact Assessments
These proposed changes must be risk assessed. The director of offender management has, in writing, informed Napo that existing national risk assessments associated with a 70/30 split in reports need to be ‘applied and developed for HPA and this work will be undertaken prior to implementation’.
These proposals will result in changes in working practices and Napo is seeking that these are fully risk assessed with particular reference to the health and safety management standards.
We are also seeking an equality impact assessment of the targeting matrix. This should also be done before implementation.
Workloads Weightings and Staff Care Agreement
This agreement needs some additions. In our view it needs to incorporate the matrix used for tiering cases as we have received reports that some cases are being ‘re-tiered’ in favour of preserving resources, rather than being anchored to the principles of ‘punish – help – change – control’. We see such practices as risky and undermining of workload timings. We must have confidence in the agreed timings and tiering methodologies and changes must be by agreement between the management side and the unions.
Timely Information and Consultation
Finally, the project on court reports could, in our view, have been grounded in smarter practice. We could have avoided disagreements with the management side if there had been willingness on their side to seek consensus at an earlier stage. The unions should not still be in the position of asking for data.
Involving the unions earlier would have avoided the mistake of the first targeting matrix. The unions are not opposed to the aim of a 70/30 ratio, but we were opposed to the aim of virtually all reports in the magistrates courts being fast tracked.
There is now agreement on the ends. We will seek to reach agreement on the means.
Specific
• Well defined: 70/30 split
Measurable
• Easy to measure 70/30
Agreed Upon
• Agreement with all the stakeholders on how to achieve the goal
Realistic
• Within the availability of resources, knowledge and time
Time Based
• Enough time to achieve the goal
Posted by Hampshire at 03:39 PM | Comments (0)
March 25, 2009
WOMEN IN NAPO -
Esther Rantzen will also be addressing the conference.
Posted by Hampshire at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)
WOMEN IN NAPO
Hampshire and Isle of Wight branch of Napo are thrilled to be hosting the Women In Napo Conference on Friday May 1st 2009 and wish to invite female members of HPA staff to attend.
The theme of the Conference will be ‘Mayday – Celebration or SOS’ which will enable an historical and contemporary celebration of women in unions and employment as well as an exploration of issues faced by women who typically come into contact with the Probation and Family Court services.
The conference is open to:
Women Napo members:
Probation practitioners;
CAFCASS practitioners
Probation Managers
CAFCASS Managers
Speakers/workshops include:
Anne Morris - Professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Solent University – Focus of her recent study on Street Workers
Melanie Morgan – Hampshire & Isle of Wight Police – Honour based violence, Domestic Abuse and Female Genital Mutilation
Nikki Shave & Sarah Fitch – Area Manager & SPO – “Women into Management”
Refreshments, lunch and dinner will be provided followed by an evening of entertainment.
This is a unique opportunity to explore current issues, broaden your knowledge, improve your practice, network with fellow practitioners and celebrate the achievements of women in the service. As a professional event you are required to register via the TN3 database and Napo would like to thank our Chief Officer for agreeing to fund the registration fees for 20 delegates.
Closing date for registrations is 31st March 2009.
Posted by Hampshire at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)
ECU
Staff who have rejected the ECU 'compensation' have been invited to meet area managers to 'discuss the ECU buy out and the next step'.
Napo and Unison advised members to reject the compensation, but because so many staff have accepted it this has limited the ability to form a collective response.In these circumstances, the advice is to accept the buy out, if it is offered, as long as this is alongside the guarantee that ECU is paid until the end of September 2009 and car parking until the end of this year
Please contact Tina Williams, George Clarke or Richard Marshall for further advice if you wish before or after the meetings
Posted by Hampshire at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)
March 21, 2009
WORKLOADS: WHERE ARE WE?
Discussions between the unions and management about revising the workloads tool and staff care agreement started in May 2007 – almost two years ago. It does not normally take the management side two years to convert ideas into action. Why has the issue of workloads travelled for so long in the slow lane? It was the unions who pushed on the duty of care issues, the importance of manageable workloads, the avoidance of excessive workloads, the necessity of ‘weighting’ new work before implementation, such as the recent changes to induction practices. It is for the management side to explain their tardiness, their apparent lack of engagement on workloads.
Last October the unions were on the verge of signing up to an agreement until the management side said they needed more time to absorb the findings of the SBC programme. (See “court reports: what is the SBC programme?” 28/2/09)
It was the SBC programme that the management side said was the driver behind their recent proposals on fast delivery and standard delivery reports. (See ‘new court reports: dumbing down risks?’ 26/2/09)
The SBC programme remains a Noms restricted document. This branch has not seen it. This programme is providing theoretical underpinning for the proposed workloads model in Hampshire. This is problematic and puts Napo at a real disadvantage in negotiations. We are being asked to sign up to an agreement when we are in the dark. What we do know is that the SBC is strongly influential in how probation work is being reshaped.
SBC is about cutting costs, it is a form of time and motion in another guise. SBC dictates that there will be a 70/30 spilt in fast delivery and standard reports. The management side have amended their proposals on what type of cases are suitable for fast delivery reports, but they still assert there are 'low risk' domestic abuse cases, though not low risk child protection case anymore. There is still too much ambiguity about what type of cases are suitable for oral reports. The changes made serve the interests of public protection, but they don't go far enough. 'Efficiency savings' should not be at the expense of safe risk assessments.
The original proposals on court reports were extreme and indicative of a failure to consult. This would have provided an excellent opportunity for the management side to have consulted with the workforce, not least, as unlike travel allowances where there was management-led consultation, workloads affect everyone. So, Napo would welcome a full consultation exercise on the proposed changes to managing workloads and the merits of the proposed model.
The chief concern about SBC is that it tends to dominate professional considerations and what staff would perhaps view as good practice. Just one example: ‘Where an offender under the supervision of the Probation Service appears in court for breach of a previous order a full Pre-sentence Report based on a full current OASys assessment should be prepared by the offender manager wherever possible.’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation Serious Further Offence review: Damien Hanson & Elliot White). This was recommended by the probation inspectorate following the murder of John Monckton in 2004. However, what we see in probation practice is that increasingly such reports are normally, if not routinely, now being undertaken as fast delivery reports. This is not resources following risk, its risk following diminishing resources. 80% of serious further offences are committed by those in the low and medium risk categories. This is not safe practice and it potentially puts the public at risk.
There is insufficient attention paid to the impact on quality of reducing resources. The probation service is going through a period of severe cuts and it is going to get worse. There will be understaffing. However, there is unlikely to be any relaxation in the target-driven culture and the emphasis on performance. There will be an increase in caseloads. There will be additional stresses placed on staff.
How do you maintain ‘performance’ against increasing demand and reducing resources? Consider the Jobcentres and ‘personalised services’. The jobcentres cannot cope with the demands. So it’s a taxi rank service instead of a personalised one where you get to know your advisor. First interviews have been cut from 40 to 30 minutes, signing on reviews cuts from 10 to 7 minutes and other activities have been cut to five minutes. This places immense pressures on staff with every minutes of their working day micromanaged. The sheer ludicrity of specifying minutes. The whole personalised process is becoming more perfunctory and with the passing months it’s likely to get worse. You cannot maintain performance as originally intended. In this case the unemployed suffer. It is not difficult to draw parallels with processes and assessment times being reduced in the probation service.
Managing workloads in the current climate becomes problematic. A model that now has SBC in the driving seat means that its timings are going to be influenced by considerations that are less linked to what makes for a good professional job, and more by considerations that will focus on increasing throughput/productivity with fewer staff. SBC can be used to spuriously make arguments that the staff are not really needed anyway. Yet the unions are being expected to sign up on behalf of members to a local agreement on workloads when the national SBC is setting the agenda on how workloads should be managed. And sign up when we are denied access to the SBC document. Why should that be?
The issue of excessive works may be best addressed in other ways.
Posted by Hampshire at 07:16 PM | Comments (0)
March 20, 2009
STAFFORD HOSPITAL TRUST
Stafford Hospital is a classic case of the government’s ‘flawed’ privatisation agenda.
The hospital, run by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, where more than 400 people are said to have died over a three year period – an above average figure - is ‘an example of what happens when the target obsessed privatisation culture takes hold’.
"The Staffordshire case is the perfect example about what happens when you put profit before the patient. A foundation trust, by its very DNA, has a commercial bias which besmirches the 1948 ideals that set-up the NHS.
"Foundation trusts are one of the first steps along the road of creating competitive markets and opening up of the possibility of an increasing amount of public services being handed to the private sector under the banner of service reform.
"The Staffordshire case demonstrates the bankruptcy of this flawed ideology.
"Current government NHS reforms are designed to involve the private sector on a scale and scope never before seen; the accumulative impact of which threatens to undermine the fundamental values of the NHS."
HEALTHCARE COMMISSION SUMMARY REPORT
Posted by Hampshire at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)
March 17, 2009
YOUR LOCAL UNION
YOUR LOCAL UNION
The local Hampshire Branch of the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff (NAPO) is your collective representational body.
The officers in your branch serve you, the members by representing you in various negotiations and activities with HPA management and by linking members with national NAPO.
The officers make up the Executive Committee and meet regularly to organise and co-ordinate your union in your area. The Executive Committee consists of :
The Chair: The formal lead representative of the Branch.
Activities include:
- attending Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee (JNCC) meetings with the Chief Officer, Board members and Directors to discuss ongoing issues and policies.
- attending policy meetings with management to negotiate policies and procedures.
- attending specific issue meetings eg; WMT development, Board to Trust.
- participating in Job Evaluation Panels.
- Chairing of Executive Committee meetings and Branch Meetings.
- liaison with National Officers
- attendance at regional and national meetings.
- representation in employee matters.
- continual liaison with members to update knowledge and inform on developments
Vice-Chairs:
Activities include:
- attending Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee (JNCC) meetings with the Chief Officer, Board members and Directors to discuss ongoing issues and policies.
- attending policy meetings with management to negotiate policies and procedures.
- attending specific issue meetings eg; WMT development, Board to Trust.
- participating in Job Evaluation Panels.
- liaison with National Officers
- attendance at regional and national meetings.
- representation in employee matters.
- continual liaison with members to update knowledge and inform on developments
Health & Safety Representative:
Activities include:
- health & safety monitoring
- health & safety inspections
- attendance at health & safety meetings
The Treasurer:
Activities include:
- management of branch account
- annual audit arrangements
- liaison with the National Treasurer
Membership Secretary:
Activities include:
- recruitment of new members
- liaison with the National Office
- membership issues
Branch Secretary:
Activities include:
- minute taking at meetings
- administrative duties
- liaison with national office staff
- Branch Meeting organisation
National Executive Conference (NEC) Representatives:
Activities include:
- Attendance at bi-monthly national executive conferences
- Feedback to members on NEC matters
Edridge Fund Representative:
Activities include:
- local point of contact for Edridge Fund
- advice and guidance on EF applications
Union Learning Representative (ULR):
Activities include:
- liaison between members and training providers
- exploration of learning opportunities for members
- dissemination of learning opportunity information to members
TPO Representative:
Activities include:
- liaison with TPO members
- recruitment of TPO members
- attendance at TPO national events
PSO Representative:
Activities include:
- liaison with PSO members
- recruitment of PSO members
- attendance at PSO national events
Ordinary Members:
Activities include:
- attendance at executive committee meetings
JNCC Representatives:
Activities include:
- attendance at JNCC meetings (these reps tend to be the Chair/Vice-Chairs and other officers).
Candidates for these positions are elected annually at the local branch Annual General Meeting (AGM).
Although some facility time is granted by HPA management for these roles, the majority of the work undertaken on behalf of members is voluntary.
Branch Meetings are generally held bi-monthly when members are expected to attend to discuss ongoing issues, raise matters, contribute to discussion and vote on branch motions. These are extremely important meetings that ensure the Branch Officers accurately reflect Members’ wishes. Priority issues are frequently debated and voted on at these meetings and Officers must act according to any mandates agreed.
REMEMBER
Your local union is only as strong as it’s members.
A strong and active membership means a strong and active union.
Without YOU there is no union.
Posted by Hampshire at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
March 12, 2009
CHILD SAFETY 'STEP CHANGE' CALL
The Laming report seems to be calling for, among other things, the 're-professionalisation' of social workers. It puts emphasis on the need to train up to masters level for frontline staff, to have a career path that does not mean leaving the frontline, to have limits on workloads, to be supported, to be heard, to be valued, and not spend 80% of working time in front of computers in mind numbing box - ticking exercises in pursuit of performance targets that are so often spurious and devoid of real meaning in the lives of real people. Sounds familiar...
Lord Laming's report concluded that child protection issues had not had "the priority they deserved" during the last five years and that social workers were overstretched and undertrained.
Other findings included:
There had been an "over-emphasis on process and targets" - resulting in a "loss of confidence" among social workers
Progress was being "hampered" by the lack of a centralised computer system and an "over-complicated... tick-box assessment and recording system"
There was a lack of communication and joined-up working between agencies
A lack of funding made social and child protection work a "Cinderella service"
There has been a reduction in child protection posts in police forces since the "initial response" to Victoria Climbie.
'Target-driven'
The publication of his second report comes amid criticism that his initial reforms have added to social workers' bureaucratic burden.
Dr Eileen Munro, reader in social policy at the London School of Economics, said social workers spent 80% of their time in front of their computers and "hardly had time to talk to the parents, let alone the children".
One of the reports recommendations: national guidelines setting out maximum case loads for social workers.
Social worker Joanna Nicolas told the BBC a lot had changed since
Lord Laming's first report, which contained more than 100 recommendations but that processes were not being followed because of the amount of work social workers had.
"The emphasis from senior managers is on filling in forms... The performance indicators that each local authority are measured on and therefore their funding is affected are what counts and not spending time with families," she said.
Link to Lord Laming's full report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/12/childprotection-social-care
Posted by Hampshire at 06:30 PM | Comments (0)
BEYOND COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL: SOCIAL EQUALITY
"The US is wealthier and spends more on health care than any other country, yet a baby born in Greece, where average income levels are about half that of the US, has a lower risk of infant mortality and longer life expectancy than an American baby. Obesity is twice as common in the UK as the more equal societies of Sweden and Norway, and six times more common in the US than in Japan. Teenage birth rates are six times higher in the UK than in more equal societies; mental illness is three times as common in the US as in Japan; murder rates are three times higher in more unequal countries. The examples are almost endless."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/12/equality-british-society
Posted by Hampshire at 06:15 PM | Comments (0)
HOW TO WASTE 150 MILLION
We have already heard that more is spent on Noms headquarters than the entire probation service. A billion plus is a lot of money but if we are getting value for taxpayers' money then we should not be churlish. Unfortunately, as 120 million pounds worth of cuts are being inflicted on the probation service, as part of 'efficiency savings' we hear that sloppy Noms management has wasted 155 million. And no one ever seems to be held truly accountable.
"An attempt to introduce a computer system for the prison and probation services that was abandoned after three years, after it had already cost £155m in public money, was last night labelled "a masterclass in sloppy project management".
The chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, Edward Leigh, said the problems with the project, to ensure that the services could share information, were "in a class of their own. This committee hears of troubled government projects all too frequently," he said. "But the litany of failings in this case are in a class of their own. All of this mess could have been avoided."
He said instead of an integrated offender management computer system, what had been delivered was a "masterclass in sloppy project management. Following blunder after blunder by senior managers, the programme clocked up delays of three years and forecast project costs had trebled."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/12/prisons-and-probation
The Report:
Posted by Hampshire at 06:03 PM | Comments (0)
March 07, 2009
PROBATION CUTS - AND OTHER LOSSES
The probation service nationally faces cuts of 120 million over the next three years. Napo has estimated that this could mean losing 25% of the workforce. If you Google ‘Probation Cuts’ you will see the impact of job losses beginning to emerge across the country. These probation cuts have nothing to do with the credit crunch/financial crisis that has been engulfing us since the autumn. No, the cuts were always intended by this government as part of their ‘efficiency saving’. They begin by creating jobs in probation, and then stifle probation of funds.
It is difficult to know what the shape of the probation service will be when it’s passed through this financial mangle. The last few years have been disastrous for probation. The nationalisation of the service with the creation of the national probation service offered some promise of achieving consistency, improving performance and giving probation a voice in the corridors of power. Performance did improve, but wise heads years ago started to suggest that the NPS was only likely to be a temporary structure and the service would swallowed up.
“Perhaps they don’t want the public to become too familiar with the NPS because they know it is only an interim stage, a temporary organisational structure pending the merger of prisons and probation into a single Correctional agency?” (Mike Nellis, 2001)
Then along came the big idea of NOMS, in 2004, which lit the blue touch paper. Probation has been effectively absorbed into a prison dominated management structure that lacks probation representation at the highest level. Probation is now controlled by the ‘dead hand’ of the prison service. In the attached document Lord Ramsbottom outlines what has happened to probation in the last few years and laments. However, last November he welcomed the creation of the Probation Chiefs Association - as a voice of rationality. In early press releases, the PCA, headed by the chief officer of London, criticised the high visibility tabards in community service and the titan prison programme. It’s a pity the PCA was not formed earlier as it would have added to the voices of opposition to the Noms project. But speaking out can carry costs and the determination of New Labour to ‘reform’ the public services could be tactically unscrupulous. In March 2007 a memo went out from Whitehall at the behest of the prisons minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, saying:
"Gerry asked for a list of the Probation Chief Officers identifying the positive champions, more negative Chiefs and those who were fairly neutral as he was keen to use the ‘champions’ to speak to MPs... "
Not the type of information that any chief officer would wish a minister to collate. The PCA chair, described in Lord Ramsbottom’s article as an ‘outstanding chief officer’ was recently removed from his post as chief officer in London. It just does not add up – or does it?
We now have probation areas seeking to become probation trusts but there isn’t much else they can do. All the trusts can essentially do is provide as many services as possible under their budgets or provide fewer services themselves and commission services locally. It is unclear what real freedoms these trusts will have and in practice they may equate more to local agents of the centre which is where the management weight and money resides.
It is strange that at a time when we are seeing the limits of competition, the weaknesses of a market philosophy, the nationalisation of the banking sector – with billions of taxpayer’s money – the probation service is being eviscerated for the sake of a paltry 120 million and it is a paltry sum next to the billions. As the probation service shrinks crime is expected to rise by about 10% during the recession.
The probation service in the UK was once regarded a world leader. The emergence of managerialism and the decline of professionalism have not been to the benefit of the service. It is ironic that in social services there is now ministerial support for a master’s degree and the minister saying: "I want to see all social care managers regularly 'going back to the floor' and working alongside their staff to handle case files and spend time with children and families." The government is also trying to lure back the 5,000 social workers who left over the past few years, many disenchanted with spending 80% of their time in front of computers.
The performance agenda in probation makes it a hostage to fortune and confuses the public. Consider the change of emphasis from enforcement to compliance. Probation staff can see the good sense of improving compliance and it’s compatibility with sound probation values, but what the public sees, and some politicians can exploit, are declining enforcement figures as being evidence of a ‘soft’ service. The hard man image was the worst possible image for an organisation that is working with some very difficult and troubled individuals. Now it’s the language of benchmarks rather than targets, but what has been missing during the New Labour years has been an enduring recognition that probation practices need to be informed by values, like professional discretion, autonomy, and respect and support for practitioners at all levels. When pragmatism rules practices can change at breakneck speed, leaving practitioners at a loss to understand the changes and their purposes. Going back to the enforcement – compliance issue, it should never have been about targets and the swinging of a pendulum in Whitehall because of fears about prison overcrowding - like care and control, enforcement and compliance are better entrusted to professional judgements rooted in commitments to end an individual’s criminal behaviour and to protect victims. Staff in this sector are not just in it for the money.
“The history of probation has… been characterised as a journey from ‘advise, assist and befriend’ to ‘enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection’. It has been suggested here, however, that there is now a weight of evidence and argument to show that the way to get the best from people is to treat them well – with fairness, respect, encouragement and personal interest. This is not only ethically valuable but also conducive to probation’s objectives. In each of its phases probation has sooner or later made this discovery. Perhaps the best way to enforce, rehabilitate and protect the public is by advising assisting and befriending.” (Dictionary of Probation and Offender Management 2007”, Rob Canton and David Hancock)
RETURN OF RATIONALITY:
MOMENTS IN PROBATION:
Posted by Hampshire at 04:19 PM | Comments (0)
March 06, 2009
ECU
We have seen the recent letter from Hampshire Probation Area urging those who have not yet accepted the buyout to reconsider.
At the end of our last meeting with the management side (5/2/09) regarding this issue, the management side stated in writing, and we quote:
“There has been a great deal of movement on both sides and the unions were thanked for their efforts to reach an agreement on this.”
This is not reflected in any way in the letters that staff have been receiving. And therefore the position being represented in those letters is by definition biased and misleading.
Posted by Hampshire at 10:46 AM | Comments (0)
March 03, 2009
COURT REPORTS AND PROPOSED WORKLOADS AGREEMENT
There is to be a delay in the implementation of plans to increase the percentage of fast delivery reports in the magistrates’ courts. In previous notes we have expressed our opposition to the proposed targeting matrix. We have now been informed there will be further refinements to the matrix which we welcome. We are committed to reaching an agreement on a new workloads tool. We accept there is a new funding formula that puts an onus on all probation areas to achieve a 70/30 split on fast delivery and full reports respectively. We will support a targeting approach that seeks to increase the proportion of fast delivery reports as long as there is careful discrimination in determining what is suitable for fast delivery and what should be subject to a full report and a full pre-sentence risk assessment. We hold that there must be acknowledgement of the right for practitioners to have their professional judgements respected as part of any targeting process. Practitioners are responsible for what they put their name to and must therefore be able to do so confidently and with real ownership.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:54 PM | Comments (0)
PAY SCALES
We don't know why when jobs are advertised in Hampshire the adverts are intent on not using the maximums as set out in the national pay agreement. We have raised this before with HR but to no avail.
There is a current post advertised for a probation officer in Aldershot. The pay range is £27,017 - £33,572 per annum. The actual maximum is £34,924 - the lower figure - £33,572 - is the development point. The development point is not the maximum and therefore the true pay range is £27,017 - £34, 924. If you apply for the post you should perhaps clarify this.
Posted by Hampshire at 03:39 PM | Comments (0)
ECU
To all those members who, following union advice, have rejected the ECU buy out' package' we thank you and we promise our full support
Posted by Hampshire at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)