Napo HQ Blog

On Monday 1st April, SRtRC returned to The Den for an educational event with Millwall FC.  Millwall FC and Millwall Community Trust are long-term supporters of SRtRC and worked in partnership with the campaign to organise the event for young people from local schools.

The event enabled Year 5&6 pupils from local schools to take part in workshops that focussed on racism and stereotypes and hate crime. Thanks to the Trust, the young people were also able to take part in a fun football session on Millwall’s indoor pitch.

Napo is also a longstanding supporter of SRtRC, and General Secretary, Ian Lawrence, went along to answer the young people’s questions, alongside club captain Steve Morison and Millwall FC team-mate Jed Wallace.

SRtRC will have a stall at this year's AGM in Cardiff (11th and 12th October). They will also be running a fringe meeting on the Friday lunchtime.

READ MORE

CRC reps, who attended a meeting on 1st May in parliament (ahead of the successful MPs Drop In event) received a briefing from Napo HQ on the 'future of Probation' as known pending a statement by Ministers and a formal response to the consultation. We had anticipated that a decision would have emerged by now but it is clear that more analysis is being undertaken and yesterday’s announcement that Rory Stewart has been promoted to the Cabinet has obviously also been a factor in the delay. We currently await news of his successor. READ THE BRIEFING

Great news! The Shrewsbury 24 Campaign has won a crucial victory in its long struggle to overturn the convictions of the building workers who were tried in 1973/74 for picketing during the national strike. On Tuesday 30 April 2019, halfway through the Judicial Review hearing in the Birmingham Administrative Court, the Criminal Cases Review Commission conceded the case. It agreed to reconsider the referral of the convictions of the pickets to the Court of Appeal. 

The pickets had asked the CCRC to refer their convictions on two main grounds: (i) recently discovered evidence that original witness statements had been destroyed and that this fact had not been disclosed to the defence; and (ii) the broadcast of a highly prejudicial TV documentary during the first trial, Red under the Bed, the contents of which was contributed to by a covert agency within the Foreign Office known as the Information Research Department.  After considering the case and all the evidence submitted by the Campaign, the CCRC had steadfastly refused to make that referral.

Four of those pickets, Nick Warren (for his late father Des), John McKinsie Jones, Michael Pierce and Terry Renshaw, together with the Campaign, refused to be bowed by this decision and pursued judicial review of the CCRC as lead applicants of the wider group. They were represented by Jamie Potter of Bindmans LLP and Danny Friedman QC of Matrix Chambers. The CCRC continued to defend the proceedings until the day of the hearing, before Lord Justice Flaux and Mrs Justice Carr. Then, two hours into the hearing, the CCRC took the unusual step of the case of conceding the case. It agreed to withdraw its earlier decisions of October 2017, turning down the pickets’ applications.

The CCRC has agreed that it will now reconsider whether or not to refer the convictions of the Shrewsbury 24 to the Court of Appeal.

Eileen Turnbull, Researcher and Secretary of the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign said, “This is a magnificent success. We are one step nearer to achieving our goal of justice for the pickets. The Shrewsbury 24 Campaign has worked tirelessly over the past 13 years. Today’s result is a testament to all our hard work and the support of the labour movement.”

The chairperson of the Campaign, Harry Chadwick, added, “It has taken us over 13 years to track down the fresh evidence to put before the courts. The Labour Party and trade unions have stood by us throughout, particularly my union, Unite. The fight goes on until we achieve justice for the pickets.”

Convicted picket, Terry Renshaw, who members will remember speaking at last year's AGM in Southport, was delighted, saying: “When I left court yesterday I almost cried with joy. We have now had three judges saying that we have an arguable case.  We look forward to the day when the CCRC sends our case back to the Court of Appeal.”

Napo held a successful parliamentary drop-in event on Wednesday 1st May to brief MPs on the costs of TR and a split service and the need for a reunified probation service. CRC reps from across the country attended the event to deliver firsthand information on the local situation in MPs areas. A briefing pack, expanding on the 8 Reasons Campaign was available for MPs on the day. You can find these on the CAMPAIGN PAGE.

CRC reps also received a briefing from Napo HQ on the 'future of Probation' as known pending a statement by Ministers and a formal response to the consultation. READ MORE

Napo has been invited to take part in the Lib Dem Justice Team's consultation on a new policy for the party on the rehabiliation of offenders. The consultation paper "REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS" was produced by Jonathan Marks (Lords Spokesperson for Justice) and Mike German (Spokesperson for Rehabilitation and Probation) following the Party's Spring Conference. Written comments are required by the end of May. Napo will be responding shortly and we will also be seeking a meeting with the Team.

One of the government’s stated objectives of TR was to “open up the market” and to enhance the role of the third sector.  This has not materialized, and the impact of TR has been to shut out many small third sector and private sector organisations: the partnership agencies essential to probation to enable a wide range of providers and services to be offered to clients.

The charity Clinks has explained how the third sector lost faith in the private contractors after they had been shunned in the delivery models, or simply used as “bid candy” to secure contracts. The NPS now has to go to the CRCs for services that could be obtained more cheaply if they went directly to voluntary organisations.

CRCs have preferred to do work in-house (in effect creating local monopolies) as a way of raising additional revenue. A HMIP  in April 2018 confirmed the failure saying that targets did not exist for CRCs on the proportion of their supply chain which should be provided by the voluntary sector. It explained that at the contract bidding stage CRCs had been required to include details of their supply chains plans, including the involvement of the voluntary sector. However, “CRC intentions (as expressed in their bids) were not then hard wired into CRC contracts”.

The most recent HMI Probation Inspectorate report (2019) found that the proportion of criminal justice third-sector voluntary organisations now working directly with CRCs (October 2018) was only 11%. While a survey by Clinks (May 2018) provided further evidence of low voluntary sector involvement. Of the 132 organisations who responded to their survey, only 35% received funding from CRCs and just two organisations received funding from the NPS.

The Justice Select Committee Inquiry reported in 2018: “It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around”.

A number of charities and voluntary organisations in the justice sector gave oral evidence to the Inquiry. One charity, YSS Ltd, said that with regard to voluntary sector involvement it felt like they had “taken a step back”. Shelter told the committee that the reason for its reduced involvement was the financial pressures facing CRCs which had resulted in them having to make budget cuts. Another charity, Pact, said TR had “opened up the market to a greater extent for larger organisations that have more capital, a bigger capital base and bigger capability to manage the risk involved”, but there were one of the few small and medium-sized organisations in the market. While the charity Switchback, claimed that “most of the smaller voluntary sector organisations work[ed] outside the formal contracting framework” due to the contractual pressures.

The JSC inquiry concluded: “In our view the Government has failed to open up the probation market, a key aim of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. We are not convinced by the Minister’s comments that the voluntary sector is more involved in probation than before the TR reforms. The decreased involvement of the voluntary sector, especially that of smaller local organisations, is deeply regrettable and reduces the quality and array of services available to individuals on probation. This has resulted in fewer local and specialist services being offered. We are concerned that currently the details of supply chains of probation providers are not publicly available and therefore it is not possible to fully assess the scale of the voluntary sector’s involvement.”

TR was supposed to deliver end-to-end offender management - a worthy aim. As sited by HMI Probation “there is much more prospect of a relationship that is strong and fruitful if it is maintained with one probation worker over the period of supervision.”

But the TR model has, instead, made it almost impossible. Any hope of consistency in supervision is undermined by the split. For a start, CRC staff are not allowed to write pre-sentence reports. If an offender commits a further offence then the case goes to the NPS for a report to be written by someone who will meet the offender only once for an interview and who will not have the same knowledge of the individual as the supervising officer who has been handling the case.

In 2017 HMI Probation found that: “only one in two individuals [was] supervised by the same officer throughout their case. In 5% of cases there had been three or more officers”.

Staff shortages in both arms of the service have also worked against effective end-to-end offender management. HMIP said in its 2019 report: “there is now a national shortage of probation professionals, plus much of the service is underfunded and so restrained in the numbers it can afford to employ. With these pressures, and with the NPS and the CRCs increasingly reliant on agency staff, individuals frequently experience a change of probation worker.”

Additionally the Inspectorate found that end-to-end offender management was not even set as a Probation target, stating: “Performance measures for the NPS and for CRCs do not require continuity in the relationships with offenders, and the continuity rate is not routinely measured.”

Another major cornerstone of TR was ‘Through the Gate’ and the extension of probation supervision and support to individuals released from sentences under 12-months.

However, TTG has also been an abject failure. The service to prisoners leaving custody has been almost non-existent and far inferior to the service provided pre-TR by Trusts, often working cooperatively and in partnership with local authorities. Indeed, Napo has pointed out that since the commencement of TR, the Through the Gate service (TTG) has largely consisted of giving the released prisoner a leaflet (so that the CRC complies with its initial meet and greet targets) but little else. Indeed, the MoJ had not defined what they actually meant by TTG in the hastily contrived contracts, and as such the CRCs are able to do the bare minimum to comply with contract management. 

The Justice Select Committee Inquiry into TR in 2018 reported: “the joint inspection report on TTG resettlement services for short-term prisoners labelled the ‘CRCs’ efforts pedestrian at best’ and explained that ‘in too many cases, resettlement planning consisted of no more than referrals to other agencies, recorded as completed once an e-mail had been sent’”. It also heard from probation users that “through the gate [was] non-existent”.

The extension of supervision to individuals who had served short-term sentences was intended to address the high reoffending rates of these individuals. In 2018 the reoffending rate for those released from sentence of less than 12 months was 63%. This compared with 56% for those given a community sentence.  Ironically however, since TR, as sentencers have lost confidence in the ability of the private companies to deliver community sentences properly we have seen a rise in short sentences and a reduction in community sentences, and the MoJ is now talking about scrapping them altogether!

Napo’s warnings of the dangers of “burnout” for NPS staff with only high-risk caseloads have sadly proved real.

Before the split, staff were more likely to have a balanced caseload that provided some light relief and assisted with risk management by keeping staff grounded. Working in one team, in one office, also enabled a sharing of work and caseloads and gave development opportunities.

NPS staff are now swamped with the relentless nature of  the high risk, often appalling, cases they carry. Apart from wearing staff down it is also in danger of stripping away the sensitivity required to retain a balanced perspective, with staff becoming desensitised by the extreme nature of the cases with whom they are required to work.

A survey by Napo last year showed that this ‘pressure cooker’ situation is having a real impact on staff who spoke of feelings of professional inadequacy, high levels of sickness, impacts on families and personal physical and mental health.

Here are some typical responses from Napo members working in the NPS.

“I feel demoralised and have experienced high levels of stress which have impacted on my health.”

“My caseload impacts upon my health (sickness absence highest ever been and worries me) wellbeing (struggling to fit in personal life/commitments), stress levels…..”

“sleeplessness, gastric problems, relationship difficulties, snappy with colleagues, feelings of guilt and frustration”

“Waking up in the middle of the night worrying about what I haven't done the day before and what I need to do when I get to work, forgetful, anxious, difficulty breathing and scared.”

“I am desperately trying to remain at work but my mental health is deteriorating after such a long time under significant stress and it has led to problems in my relationships at home.”

Worryingly, a number of members cited work related issues as directly linked to serious health issues including heart attacks and strokes experienced by themselves or colleagues.

High workloads are also in the mix. The NPS has been severely short staffed from the get go, due to bad planning and an underestimation of the number of cases that it would be given.

Members have told Napo that the sheer amount of work that staff are expected to manage is overwhelming with many recording levels of between 100% and 210% on the workload management tool (WLMT) matrix. This is unsustainable. One PO said staff had “..no time to do any offence focused work and are constantly fire-fighting.”

The NPS admitted to the Justice Select Committee Inquiry in 2018 that it that it needed to recruit roughly 1,500 POs and PSO to undertake face-to-face work with offenders; while Probation Director, Sonia Crozier, said that in the first half of 2017 the NPS had fell far short of its target for increasing staffing.

Napo told it that: “Staff shortages, excessive workloads and inadequate management support is having a detrimental impact on NPS staff and burn out is becoming apparent through sickness figures. Staff morale is at an all-time low with many staff leaving the profession.”

Napo will be hosting a drop-in session for MPs on 1^st of May to put this, and seven other reasons to reunify the probation service to MPs.

If you haven’t already done so, complete the postcard and send it back to your local MP encouraging them to join the fight to make sure the probation service is able to rehabilitate clients, keep the public safe and to protect your profession.

Need any materials to be a part of the campaign? Email campaigns@napo.org.uk

The Probation Service lost a lot when it lost the Trusts; with their visible and accessible local leadership, personal autonomy and opportunities to try innovative practice and team working. Napo members feel this ethos has gone in the top-down structure of the NPS with its focus on uniformity against massive financial constraints.

Sadly the potential benefits of a centralised service: national standards, consistent professional development and training pathways, a national license to practice, etc., have not emerged - indeed, they are made even more difficult because of the split service.

There is a leadership paralysis where people are unsure and/or unwilling to take responsibility for outcomes and actions. The NPS struggles because accountabilities are unclear and even senior managers either do not have delegated authority to act or, if they do, cannot get consistent and accurate information about the parameters of potential decisions.

Any nationalised service can become bureaucratic and risk averse. The lessons of the last attempt to centralise probation in the early 2000s went unheeded.  On a day-to-day basis the NPS is plagued by bureaucracy and by centralised instruction removing local flexibility.

In oral evidence to the Justice Select Committee, Napo said: “Stories from members trying to apply for posts in the NPS also shine a light into the Kafka-esque bureaucratic chaos in the NPS. The recruitment process is torturous, with online applications vulnerable to unstable IT. Security clearance processes are not aligned to recruitment processes, and can delay either starting dates or people being paid once they start. Trying to convert temporary staff into permanent contracts is also problematic. It is not unusual to take a year from application to starting, even where DBS checks are already in place”.

A Probation Officer working in an inner city team, told the Committee: “The NPS is a top down ‘this is the way you do it’ bureaucracy which makes no effort to engage us as practitioners who know the job and the people we work with. Staff are relocated against their will and morale in many overstretched and stressed frontline teams is dire. Many experienced staff have had enough and left.”

A key problem is that front line managers have had to absorb most HR functions, in line with civil service norms, but with little training.  Before senior probation officers did very little HR, mostly focusing upon supervision of professional output and coaching around cases. They have now taken on a full line management role, including performance management and development; managing grievances and HR questions around leave, etc., while STILL maintaining the professional support.

Managers are frustrated by having to rely on advice and support from the Shared Service Centre (SSCL) who have proved beyond incompetent, and the the fact that taxpayer is now subsiding this incompetence at up to 55p a minute because managers and staff have to call a premium rate number to find out why their pay is wrong is beyond parody.

From the start, the NPS has suffered from staff shortages and excessive workloads, amplified by consequential increases in sickness absence and staff turnover. But HMPPS has focussed on staffing the Prison Service as a priority over probation recruitment. This  is reflected in its recruitment campaigns as evidenced by a recent MoJ advert showing riot control and baton charges as “key elite skills” for working in HMPPS – an example of the cultural friction facing the MoJ.

Meanwhile, the internal market in the system and the management of the CRC contracts has led to an enormous, and costly, rise in the bureaucracy of the service. The JSC heard that the CRC contracting teams in HMPPS England and HMPPS Wales had a reported annual collective budget of £5.137 million and employed around 85 full-time staff. The Committee said: “We are surprised that it costs HMPPS and HMPPS Wales more staff and money to manage the Ministry’s contracts with the 21 CRCs, than HMI Prisons has to inspect more than a hundred prisons, as well as young offender institutions, secure training centres, immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities, police custody, military detention and court custody.”

Napo will be hosting a drop-in session for MPs on 1^st of May to put this, and seven other reasons to reunify the probation service to MPs.

If you haven’t already done so, complete the postcard and send it back to your local MP encouraging them to join the fight to make sure the probation service is able to rehabilitate clients, keep the public safe and to protect your profession.

Need any materials to be a part of the campaign? Email campaigns@napo.org.uk

Napo, welcomed many of the findings in the Chief Inspectors Report into the National Probation Service Wales (published on Wednesday) but called for all work to be taken into public ownership.

Whilst acknowledging the positive conclusions about the quality of leadership and enthusiasm of staff, Napo General Secretary, Ian Lawrence, said that: “the excellent efforts of staff in maintaining service standards and contact with the Welsh Government were being maintained in spite of the damage that has been caused since the division of probation functions prior to the part privatisation of the service in 2014”.

READ MORE