« May 2009 | Main | July 2009 »
June 23, 2009
NAPO’S RESPONSE TO PC06/09 ‘DETERMINING PRE-SENTENCE REPORT TYPE’
This is national Napo's response to the recent probation circular on the FDR vs SDR decison making. PC06/09 is a NOMS/PRISON circular - it's odd that the fiction of 'probation circulars' persists. It's a mess: it calls for 'sufficient information' for the courts to sentence and 'sufficient information' for probation to reach defensible decisions - not quite a level playing field... that distant dream of probation being centre stage.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2009
AGM MINUTES
BRANCH AGM MINUTES
Sea Street, Newport, IOW
Friday 19th June 2009
•Present & Apologies – In book. Note that meeting quorate.
•Matters of accuracy – Previous AGM Minutes agreed.
Changes to Agenda agreed – Office Closures added to Agenda. Job Evaluation removed from Agenda.
•Election of Officers
Chair - GEORGE CLARKE nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Vice Chair – TINA WILLIAMS nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Health & Safety Rep – PETER WADE nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Treasurer – FIONA LIDSTONE nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Branch Secretary – TINA WILLIAMS nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Membership Secretary – TREVOR EMANS nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
NEC Reps (1) – MARGARET DUNNE nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
(2) – STEVE CHRISTIE nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Edridge Fund Rep – JERRY KENNELLY nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
PSO Rep Vacant
TPO Rep Vacant
Diversity Rep Vacant
Ordinary Member JNCC- STEVEN BROUGHTON nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
Ordinary Member – SAMANTHA ASHTON-REMNANT nominated and seconded. No other nominations. Passed unanimously.
•Office Closures
-Members raised concerns regarding office closures and process of moving to different locations.
-Noted that no staff member has had an individual face to face consultation regarding their move.
-Noted that staff have already been moved and where choice (noted from a questionnaire) could not be offered then direction applied.
-Noted that this ad hoc approach to directing staff anywhere without consideration of their circumstances could happen to anyone.
-Outline of union requests for formal talks regarding the redeployment of staff. Union reps have made contact with HR management to request formal consultation meetings. Meeting now scheduled for 7th July 2009 but it is concerning that staff are being moved before any procedure put in place. A Policy framework needs to be in place prior to moving staff.
-Members noted there may be serious health and safety issues regarding, for example, overcrowding.
-Members suggested refusal to move unless procedure in place. However, this is direct action that would require consultation with all members and ballot. Decided that strong union action is required on this matter. Reps to take forward. Napo Note to go on website to advise members on the need to come to Reps with individual concerns.
-If members feel aggrieved by decisions – advised to take out a Grievance.
-Members raised concern regarding the impact on service users. Generally felt that compliance will be affected and this reorganization will result in hardship for some.
Car parking Policy discussed.
-Acknowledged that Policy on the HR came into effect on 1st June 2009.
-Discussion regarding Policy implementation and concerns raised over lack of effective consultation with unions.
-Noted that separating out of business mileage into eligible mileage counted towards thresholds for free parking and other mileage is contradictory. Members noted that all mileage should be counted as essential business mileage. Members noted that designated role holders who now receive free parking rarely undertake journeys for direct offender contact thus their mileage would never reach eligible thresholds.
-Members noted that where business space allocation in operation there is already in fighting between staff on who can book the spaces.
-Members noted that where they do not qualify for ECU any longer they do not essentially need to provide a vehicle for business use. HPA have a duty to ensure appropriate transport arrangements are available. However, concerns raised over the impact on staff of trying to arrange suitable transport arrangements. This impacting on stress levels for busy staff.
-Noted that HPA rely heavily on staff goodwill when using their own vehicles.
-Concerns raised that where car parking is currently free it will be withdrawn and/or charged for in the future.
-Members advised that if they feel aggrieved by these issues they should raise a Grievance.
•Dispute Panel Ruling
-Result of Dispute Panel Hearing on 3rd June 2009 fed back to members. Dispute regarding the Chief Officer’s decision to stay new applications for ECU status pending completion of consultation and negotiation over the introduction of a revised Travel Policy. Richard Marshall (then Chair) and Tina Williams (Vice Chair) presented the case for Napo. Unison Rep also in attendance and Barrie Crook presented the case for HPA. The Panel consisted of 3 Board Members. The findings were:
1. The Chief Officer did not consult about his intention to stay new applications for ECU status.
2. The extant ECU Policy did not include any specification of timeliness. The staying of applications did not therefore in itself constitute a breach of the Policy.
3. The notice of staying of applications was accompanied by a stated intent to apply new and agreed criteria to the stayed claims. Had the intention been to apply other than agreed criteria then we would have found that to be a breach of policy.
Therefore, the Panel did not uphold the complaint.
-Discussion ensued and some members noted that Panel Members consisted of Board Members thus concern over bias that could occur in the decision making process.
Workloads/WMT
-Outline of history of negotiations between management and staff side regarding the WMT.
-Noted that branch do not accept the WMT as a legitimate tool for recording workload. Timings are not considered truly reflective or valid. New tasks will not be evaluated thus outcomes will not be truly reflective of workloads.
-Noted that extra tasks could be noted on the supplementary information sheet. Noted also that travelling times can be recorded on these forms, especially where travel times increase due to using public transport.
-Concerns that retiering likely - to reduce recognized staff workload data yet in reality staff will still be working with service users with higher needs than acknowledged. ETE Officers, do not have an effective tool for measuring workload.
-Handout given with advice from Napo National Office on how to deal with workload stress.
-Discussion ensued in which members agreed that it is preferable to keep timesheets enabling documentation of the actual hours worked. Members advised to discuss the taking of their TOIL with Line Managers where this is accrued.
-Members advised to inform their Line Managers that they do not have faith in the WMT figures and if feel their workload is not adequately assessed or dealt with – then to raise a Grievance.
•AGM Motions
-Discussion regarding submission of a Motion to Napo AGM in Torquay. Ideas surrounded a Motion requesting Napo to explore the issue of organizational bullying in the service. Members reported feeling fearful, intimidated and bullied into working towards achieving targets and changing working practices. Motion to be created by Branch Secretary and discussed with Members who raised the concerns before submission to Napo.
•AGM
-Discussion regarding AGM attendance.
-Motion regarding eligibility to be put to Branch in Any Other Business.
-Discussion regarding attendance. Nationally Napo are in discussions with the employers regarding facility time for all AGM attendees. To date, talks looking favourable. Also noted that some Areas already allow facility time for AGM due to the professional nature of Napo as well as a Trade Union. Officers to update Members with future news.
-Members advised to contact Branch Secretary by 30th June 2009 if they wish to attend the Napo national AGM in Torquay this year.
•Staffing/Local issues
-Member raised a concern regarding a lack of operational Managers across prisons. Concerns regarding lack of time availability to effectively supervise staff. Member advised that this should be discussed with Line Manager if issues arise and if feeling aggrieved by this issue then to raise a Grievance.
-Member raised a concern regarding the number of temporary contracts in use in the Area. Concerns also regarding the vacancy freeze and the impact on staff workloads. Number of cases increasing with no relief due to lack of available staff. Member advised that if they feel they have no more capacity for further cases they must discuss with their Line Manager. If member not happy with discussions they are advised to raise a Grievance.
•Health & Safety-
H & S Rep presented Report. Concerns raised regarding HPA’s cancellation of inspection meetings.
-Member raised concerns regarding lack of a Lone Working Policy for UPW Supervisors. Supervisor safety issues raised and discussed. Noted that situations can be eligible for Grievance. H&S Rep to take concerns forward. Noted that a Hazard Report should be completed each time a Supervisor takes a group out without there being an appropriate Risk Assessment in place. Please copy Peter Wade into the Report.
-Personal Protection Alarms should be tested regularly. ^This not occurring. In fact when Alton office alarm tested for external assistance there was no response. H&S Rep to take this issue to the H&S Steering Group. Aim that every building should be tested regularly.
•Treasurers Report
- Treasurer not present however Report submitted.
- Branch balance healthy.
- Report detailed cost of Paulton’s Park member Fun Day.
- £200 donation to northern branches for AGM travel assistance.
- Still awaiting £200 donation from HPA towards Women In Napo conference costs.
- Discussion regarding expenditure. Acknowledgement that AGM will incur substantial costs.
•Membership Report
-270 members. Noted that there have been number of requests to join Napo recently. This encouraging in the current financial climate. Noted that word of mouth the most effective recruitment tool. Noted that membership is open to temporary staff in Probation.
•NEC Report
-NEC Rep who will be attending next NEC not present thus no discussion.
Union Social Events
-Paultons Park Member Family Fun Day took place on 14th June 2009. All agreed the day was successful. Participant (GK) to write a short report on the day for the website.
-Tolpuddle Festival – to take place over the weekend of 18th – 19th July 2009. To date there have been insufficient participants to warrant the hire costs of a coach thus discussion regarding alternative arrangements. Members can receive financial assistance for this event in one of 2 ways;
1. Cost of pitch for overnight camping OR
2. Cost of travel to Tolpuddle based on mileage on Sunday 19th July 2009.
Members are encouraged to attend this great event with their Napo colleagues. Please advise your Branch Secretary, Tina Williams by 30th June 2009 if you wish to attend and which option you will need.
•Any Other Business
-Women In Napo Conference. Branch gave thanks to the Women In Napo Organizing Committee for organizing this national event.
-Motion put to Branch by TW;
THIS BRANCH AGREES TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR MEMBERS TO ATTEND 2 BRANCH MEETINGS TO QUALIFY FOR FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL AGM. ALL MEMBERS ATTENDING ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND EVERY SESSION.
Some discussion regarding wording of the Motion. Vote took place and Passed by majority.
- Member raised wish to send a message of support to Greater London Branch in the wake of the Sonnex murders. All agreed.
•Date of next meetings
Calendar for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Branch meetings discussed. Dates will be advised to members.
Next Meeting; Friday 31st July 2009 at 2pm at Town Quay.
Posted by tinawilliams at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)
June 21, 2009
OFFICE CLOSURES
To understand the criteria for qualifying for a car parking permit there is a lengthy policy and set of procedure which runs to about 15 pages. However, when it comes to office moves there appears to be a policy and procedural vacuum.
There have been some questionnaires filled in, some meetings at office locations. This has been called consultation. There have been no formal meetings as yet between the unions and HR on office closures. It appears to have been assumed that the unions would make up the numbers at office meetings – and that would suffice as consultation.
Moving offices will not be problematic at all for some staff. But for others there are issues – personal, family, and health. At the present time there is a lack of clarity about the process. Staff are currently being told where they are being moved to as though that is the final word. It appears decisions have already been taken.
Members are unsure of their rights. The process involves selection, the application of criteria – but how these are operated is opaque. This is unsatisfactory.
On the Personnel database you will find the Staff Policy on Redeployment. Napo has advised HR of this policy but their response is that it’s not applicable. Napo’s position is that it is applicable and it will be helpful in managing redeployments associated with office closures. The policy specifically refers to ‘significant organisational change’ and that was a term agreed upon during the formulation of the policy to cover ‘team restructuring and closure of offices’.
The policy requires consultation with individuals affected by redeployment. The consultation thus far has disappointed some individual members and the position taken by HR on the redeployment policy and the process of consultation has disappointed Napo.
Our advice to members is clear: the redeployments policy applies and should be followed. We advise members who are dissatisfies with how their redeployment is being addressed to contact a Napo representative.
Posted by Hampshire at 09:15 PM | Comments (0)
June 19, 2009
PANTOMIME WITHOUT LAUGHS
Jack Straw claimed that the fundamental problems within the London probation service had been managerial, claiming that the London operation had "under spent by £3.5m on a budget of £154m". London’s underspend was about 2%
“We will try to support the maximum level of under spending” Extract from a letter written by then director of probation Roger Hill
“There is absolutely no inconsistency between this letter and what Jack Straw said” Ministry of Justice spokesman
"Probation chiefs were encouraged by senior officials at the Ministry of Justice to under spend for contingencies for the next financial year." Harry Fletcher, Napo.
Posted by Hampshire at 07:18 AM | Comments (0)
June 15, 2009
PAYBANDS
These are the paybands updated from May last. Those posts in bold type have changed since last May.
The paybands as of June 2009
Download file
The Paybands as of May 2008
Download file
Posted by Hampshire at 04:16 PM | Comments (0)
June 13, 2009
NAPO - WORKLOADS GUIDE
Protecting yourself from work-related stress – an easy guide for every Napo member
WORKLOAD HOURS
The original national Workload Measurement formula stipulates that available time for casework is what is left after the averages for leave, training, sickness absence, etc. are reckoned in – and then a further 16% is deducted to account for “non-case related work”. So, for example a PO: starting with 150 hours (148 for PSOs) the available time for casework turns out to be 106.5 hrs., as demonstrated by these “cautious” (to quote NOMS) statistics.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2009
WORKLOADS AND HAMPSHIRE PROBATION
The management side will be undertaking briefings on their new ‘workloads protocol’. Up until October last year there had been some prospect of an actual agreement being reached with the unions. But then the directives came down from the prison leadership in Noms and so-called efficiency savings took over. Most manifest of late is the conversion of SDRs to fast track reports. This is cutting frontline jobs, not saving jobs.
Look at London Probation now – to be funded for an extra 100 probation officers – in the wake of a tragedy. In Hampshire we have anxious trainee probation officers, not knowing if they will have jobs in a few months time. Is this an example of supporting frontline staff? Meanwhile a ‘management review’ proposes creating new management support and director posts and enhancing other posts with more money.
A workload tool from the perspective of the unions is fundamentally about staff care and manageable workloads, based on agreed timings. However, with the 70/30 target for reports the management side’s stance is that they must follow the instructions that come down from Noms, not least as Noms holds the purse strings and managerial clout...like apprentices probation areas compete to impress the Alan Sugars in Noms.
As with the elitist car parking diktat, this workloads diktat will not support frontline staff. In the last staff survey senior management were at their weakest when it came to helping staff prepare for and cope with change. What happened to pro-social modeling...?
A workload weighting tool that is not built around agreement on timings, that can be altered at will by the management side, is not a tool that is going to be in the interests of members.
As with fast delivery court reports you can see how output is maintained - by lowering practice standards and using fewer staff to achieve the same throughput.
This is the Noms - probation version of ‘demand management’: you meet the same demands with fewer resources by adjusting the timings for reports; you can also ‘down tier’ cases, you can reduce the timings allocated to tiers, you can adjust/change your targets, you can lower your practice standards. You can take risks with risk. You make your staff work faster: the ‘just - do – it’ mentality prevails. You tell frontline staff they are lucky to have a job, don’t shake the tree. But the new jobs in London and the capitulation by Humberside probation trust on compulsory redundancies shows what happens when the tree is shaken.
These developments, members report, have an impact on their job satisfaction and raise fears regarding the quality of the practice they deliver. Moreover, many staff currently experience excessive workloads and are struggling. We are receiving more reports of work - related stress. It seems that professional responsibility, heightened in the aftermath of an error strewn and avoidable tragedy, of decision-making on the frontline is little understood and barely acknowledged.
Overworked and unsupported? Officially you won't be. The tool is not to be relied upon to fairly reflect workload pressures, nor support staff. It’s a management tool that will further undermine professional standards.
Notably, the Noms investigation in the wake of the London murders recommends that chief officers and board chairs must report quarterly to the DOM on workloads, based on numerical factors such as caseloads, staffing levels, etc.
We will be discussing workloads at the branch AGM in June and seeking an agreed form of action/advice for members.
'Unless this issue about workload and capacity is looked at, unless there are far more staff for probation at the frontline and unless they are well supported and managed, these kinds of problems will recur.'
(Former chief probation officer, London)
“The serious errors in the Sonnex case resulted from management failures including resource allocation, workload pressure and practice standards. We should not blame frontline staff.”
(Current chief probation officer, London)
Posted by Hampshire at 12:18 PM | Comments (0)
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN DEMISE?
Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, appears to think so…
“…‘performance management’ culture for causing mountains of paperwork, and leaving officers hand-tied by procedure.
The performance regime of the last few years has produced a style of performance management which is focused on the figures themselves as the outcome and sees compliance with processes as the best way to produce that outcome. At its worse it becomes an inquest on what has already happened in an attempt to catch someone out…”
Posted by Hampshire at 11:17 AM | Comments (0)
June 04, 2009
NAPO PRESS RELEASE: THE MURDERS OF GABRIEL FEREZ AND LAURENT BONOMO
Gabriel Ferez and Laurent Bonomo were murdered on 29th June 2008. They were horrific killings, unprecedented in recent history. One of the accused, Daniel Sonnex, was on non-parole licence. The licence commenced on 8th February 2008. On 1st May he was arrested and charged with handling stolen goods, and remanded in custody. He was subsequently bailed on 16th May and went missing. Recall proceedings were completed by mid-June but the police were unable to locate him.
The standards of supervision of any individual who is charged with a further serious offence, who is on licence, are automatically the subject of a Serious Further Offence (SFO) enquiry. This enquiry examines in detail the practice and decisions made by staff involved in the case. In Napo’s view it is rare for there to be any direct link between faults and mistakes found and preventing the crime. Nevertheless the individual members of staff in this case have been severely criticised in the reports.
Harry Fletcher, Assistant General Secretary of Napo the Probation Union, said: “These were savage murders. However the decisions made by individuals involved in supervision were based on information available at the time. Had staff known that the individual on supervision was to go on and commit a horrific murder then obviously the decisions would have been different. The officer involved in direct supervision in this case was newly qualified yet had 127 cases at the time of the murder. Fifty of these were medium-risk in the community. The senior officer was carrying the work of two and half people. Managers were equally under pressure from overwork and multiple responsibilities. It was the Ministry not the Chief Officer who controlled budgets and training. The supervision occurred in Lewisham. No probation officers working in that borough had more than two years post qualification experience. There were two senior officers when there should have been five. There were high sickness rates, overwork and stress and not surprisingly in the autumn of 2008 a group grievance was taken out - which is still unresolved.”
He added: “If staff had received the same level of supervision, attention and inspection as conducted by the inquiry, during 2008, then matters may have been different. Blaming individuals avoids the acceptance of political responsibility. Ministers should either fund the criminal justice system and allow probation officers to do their jobs properly or stop claiming that they are protecting the public. This case was appalling but does illustrate the stresses and strains facing courts, probation and police and that cuts to services are hampering their ability to carry out their day to day duties. The absence of an integrated IT system hindered communication. The collapse of the government’s C-NOMIS system, which would have helped the process, meant staff resorting to legacy systems, the phone and fax, to vainly try and get information to complete assessments.
There were contradictions because of prison overcrowding, the courts were under pressure to bail when they could and probation to only recall to custody if necessary and after strenuous reviews.
The cost of NOMS bureaucracy has soared since its inception in 2004 to more than £1 billion per annum. More is now spent on administering the NOMS hierarchy than the entire expenditure on the Probation Service in England and Wales. “
Jack Straw has stated that the Probation Service does not have a resource crisis and that the case illustrates management failure. He cites a 70% increase in budgets since 1997 and a £17 million underspend last year.
Harry Fletcher added: “Probation did receive additional funds over the last decade, but it did not result in extra probation officers. The number of probation officers fell by 9% over the period. The money was spent on failed IT, consultants and huge increases in bureaucracy. The underspend last year was not a surplus, but held over to fund this year’s redundancies. It is extraordinary that the government is implementing a 20% cut across the Probation Service over the next three years. Also, it is outrageous that over 50% of trainee probation officers qualifying this year will not get jobs. This is a waste of talent and taxpayers’ money. Commonsense decrees that the cuts are bound to lead to even less rigorous supervision, more crime, more victims and more public protection compromises.”
END
And this comment from a former chief probation officer:
"David Scott, London's hugely experienced chief probation officer, who resigned in February rather than go through the humiliation of a "performance capability procedure", says that probation now risks becoming a neglected "Cinderella service" unless urgent attention is paid to the workload, over which the service has few effective controls, as well as to its absence from key decision making about policy and resources."
The article in full...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/jun/04/sonnex-probation-service
Posted by Hampshire at 08:12 PM | Comments (0)
June 02, 2009
STRESS
We want to provide members with some advice on workplace stress and resources. In the 2003 Hampshire staff survey 43% of respondents felt that stress was dealt with effectively, leaving 57% dissatisfied.
In 2008 there was a another staff survey and in Appendix 1 and 2 you can see the results which are colour coded from Red (high risk) through to Green (low risk). There are few Greens.
On page 3 of the survey the following is set out and just to pick out two themes ,of excessive workloads and the management of change, and you can see where some workplace stress might be coming from.
THE 2008 HAMPSHIRE STAFF SURVEY FOUND…
The Probation area achieved the following 18 poorest scores in the benchmark group:
The Probation Area had the lowest proportion of staff who said…
1. they are able to complete their work within their contracted hours;
2. they have a good balance between their work and home life;
3. their immediate line manager/supervisor gives them recognition for work done well;
4. their immediate line manager/supervisor keeps them informed about things they should know about;
5. they found their performance appraisal useful;
6. they agreed clear objectives as part of their appraisal;
7. their appraisal or performance review left them feeling their work is valued by the HPA;
8. they had received the training, learning and development identified in their personal development plan;
9. their line manager has supported them in accessing the training, learning and development identified in their PDP;
10. after training they review with their line manager what has been achieved;
11. the training and development opportunities they are given take full account of their disability or their special needs;
12. they feel fairly paid in relation to other staff in the HPA doing the same job;
13. they work in a team;
14. they feel that excessive workload is dealt with effectively at work;
15. they feel that accidents at work are dealt with effectively at work;
16. they feel that their current workload is manageable;
17. the information they receive is in a format they can access;
The highest proportion of staff who said…
18. more could be done to help staff prepare for and cope with change.
Stress is a meaningless terms unless it is linked to symptoms. Members who are experiencing what they believe to be work-related stress must record it otherwise it does not exist. Often stress first comes to light through sickness absence which is unfortunate for the individual and not in the interests of an organisation that seeks to maintain a healthy working environment.
So we urge you to complete Incident Forms which can be found on the H&S database, See the Holby City example as it will show you how to record work related stress. Recording is important as it sends a message to the employer and reminds of the duty of care. It is also essential in the event of any future legal action – see the Thompson’s advice booklet.
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
HOLBY CITY
THOMPSON'S LEGAL ADVICE
WORK RELATED STRESS - A SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
Posted by Hampshire at 02:37 PM | Comments (0)
THE MANAGEMENT OF REDUNDANCY SITUATIONS
"The protocol covers best practice and principles for employers and unions engaged in a redundancy situation. It provides for a range of joint work to be undertaken well in advance of any decision to reduce the staffing establishment including the application of a period of reflection and consideration of a range of alternatives to assist and support staff at risk. Additionally, it requires an equality impact assessment to ensure that decisions are fair, transparent and do not discriminate.
The provisions contained in the Protocol are important for the protection of staff. They put a responsibility on local employers to meet the highest employment standards and provide branches with the opportunity to represent the best interests of members by ensuring union representatives are an integral part of any process. Branches should ensure that areas publicly endorse the Protocol and undertake to work to it. Any issues should be raised nationally via your link National Official."
See attached documents for details:
MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE PROTOCOL
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
Posted by Hampshire at 09:34 AM | Comments (0)