Napo Annual Report 2019/20

The Annual Report stretches to 82 pages and I notice that the NEC met 5 times since the last report:-

"The NEC has met five times since the last annual report was written: scheduled meetings in September and November of 2019 and in March and June of 2020; and a Special NEC in July 2020. The Special NEC was to consider constitutional amendments to go to AGM in October. The NEC oversees the work of all Napo’s standing committees and networks and receives regular reports from them. Much of the business conducted by the NEC is therefore reported in other sections of the Annual Report."

Probation Negotiating Committee

1. The Committee carried one vacancy in Bands 1-3, one vacancy in Band 4 and one vacancy in Bands 5+. It has met in November, March, May July and August since the last annual report was written. The Committee would also want to thank former PNC members Esther Barton and Dino Peros for their work over previous years. 

2. The items below were discussed at meetings and incorporated regular updates by Link National Officials for their respective CRC areas. 

3. Probation Reunification update. The announcement in June this year that Interventions and Programmes would follow Sentence Management into the NPS, completed the first part of Napo’s campaign to return Probation back to full public ownership and control. 

4. Since the first announcement in May 2019 the General Secretary and National Chair have been involved in intensive negotiations on a new staff transfer and protections agreement to facilitate this major project, and after the new announcement in June 2020 the negotiations changed to accommodate the new plans. 

5. At the time of writing it is expected that there will be a CRC members’ ballot on the outcome of the negotiations in the summer. 

6. NPS Pay. The two year NPS pay deal ended in March 2020 but it became clear late last year that agreement on a Competency Based Framework model that was to provide the basis for future pay progression with effect from April 2020 would not be possible. This was through no fault of the recognised trade unions but a failure by the NPS to sufficiently resource this project. 

7. After further negotiations, the employer agreed that pay progression would be awarded to NPS staff in April 2020 and that unless the CBF was in place for a 12-month period prior to April 2021 then pay progression would also be enacted at that date. 

8. Unfortunately, the election of a new 80-seat majority Tory Government in December saw a hardening of attitude in respect of the pay remit policy and we heard the bad news that pay progression for NPS staff would be delayed. 

9. Napo were among many trade unions who had expressed concern prior to the General Election at what another Tory Government would mean for public sector pay. 

10. Obviously, the trade unions expressed outrage that our members were facing this unjust scenario and several meetings have taken place with the Director General for Probation and the Justice Minister over recent months. We have been reassured that pay progression will be paid when the 2020 pay negotiations are concluded. 

11. At the time of writing NPS Pay negotiations are at last set to resume. 

12. Pay Unity Campaign. Napo National Officials have maintained pressure on CRC owners to take positive steps to redress the imbalance between CRC and NPS pay rates, and recognise the significant recruitment and retention challenges across the whole of probation. 

13. On-Going HR Process issues, including PAYE and Pensions. Whilst further progress has been made in addressing the high number of members who continue to suffer from PAYE, pension and HR processing errors – including over and under payments. There have been intermittent problems since the last AGM. 

14. Representations on these systematic failings continue and Napo has continually raised the loss of trust and confidence in these systems with Ministers, as they must inevitably impact upon confidence in how safely staff from CRCs can be absorbed into the NPS when the CRC contracts come to an end in June 2021. 

15. CRCs Negotiating Items: 

a) Kent Surrey and Sussex CRCs/Seetec (including ex-Working Links owned CRCs) 

• Pay. After months of hard work by reps and national officials from Napo and our sister unions, SEETEC KSS CRC, made a pay offer at the turn of the year covering staff across all of their regions for 2020/2021. This follows an earlier joint pay claim and the declaration of a pay dispute which led to further talks between the parties. 

• It is fair to say that the improvement in industrial relations between senior SEETEC Management and the Unions since SEETEC took over the CRC contracts in Wales and the South West from Working Links, was a major factor in this pay offer being made. 

• SEETEC KSS CRC were the first employer to declare that they were prepared to match the current NPS pay rates. This was a major step forward in Napo’s long running campaign to achieve pay parity across both arms of the Probation service. 

b) The SEETEC offer 

• Realignment of all salary bands to the current NPS Pay bandings (if this results in less than a 3% increase for any employee, SEETEC would apply an unconsolidated payment for the % differential) 

• This proposal resulted in staff moving directly to the 2019 NPS position. Increasing the maxima of the band enabled employees at the top of the current pay band to receive an actual increase on their base pay. The employers offer meant that that the new minimum salary for any employee would be £19,977. 

• Mirroring the NPS bandings resulted in 74% of the workforce receiving an increase of 4% or above, and 52% of the workforce receiving an increase of 5% or above. 

• The offer was subsequently overwhelmingly accepted by members 

c) Interserve CRCs - pay 

• Following the 2018-19 award which was paid in February 2019 and was back dated to April 18, Napo and UNISON submitted a pay claim for 2019-20 in March 2019 for a minimum 3% increase for all Interserve CRC employees to be achieved through the payment of an annual increment on 1 April, restructuring of the pay spine and an unconsolidated payment if necessary. 

• An initial offer was rejected by 92% of Napo members and a series protracted pay talks ensued. Eventually a new offer emerged which was accepted by Napo members in July this year as follows: 

- April 2020 to November 2020 - one spine point increment. This was paid in May 2020, for all eligible staff; 

- April 2020 to November 2020 - an unconsolidated amount of £200 for those at the top spine point for their grade (This is pro-rata of the £300 full year amount taking it to December 2020);

- Removal of pay band overlap between bands 4 and 5, effective from 1 April 2020; - 5 December 2020 to June 2021 (at which point the CRC contract ends)

- NPS pay parity which will be paid in December 2020 payroll; 

- April 2021 to June 2021 (at which point the CRC contract ends) - one spine point increment to those eligible as per the NPS national agreement reached with the unions; 

- Allowances will remain unchanged. Any agreed changes with the NPS will take effect when pay parity is implemented in December. 

d) Sodexo CRCs 

• Pay. Napo and UNISON have held a number of further meetings on pay with Sodexo since the last AGM. Significant progress was made and the employer has recognised the importance of delivering pay reform in these discussions. 

• The Sodexo Pay agreement covers the six Sodexo CRCs for the years 2020/21 and 2021/22 (up to the CRC contract end). The offer was designed to modernise the pay structure so that staff will reach the top of the scale within a much shorter timeframe. 

• The main terms of the offer comprised for 2020/21 a 2.5% Non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band A minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a non-consolidated payment will be made. 

• The 2021/22 Pay Offer is a 2.5% non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band 4 and a minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a nonconsolidated payment will be made. 

e) Durham Tees Valley CRC 

• Pay. The second instalment of the two year pay agreement reached with Durham Tees Valley CRC has been enacted 

• This comprised a deal for 2020/21 and 2021/22 covering the remaining 15 months to contract end in June 2021. The pay deal provides a guaranteed minimum pay award of 6%, payable from April 2020 and assimilation onto the NPS pay scales. This means that the new pay scales will significantly reduce the time to progress through each pay band and the value of progression will be larger than in the current pay structure. Also, the offer guarantees each member of staff a minimum increase of 6% and some staff will receive a greater increase. As this offer met Napo’s demand, that the pay scales at DTV CRC are aligned to the NPS, Napo recommended acceptance of the pay offer. As a result Napo members voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer. The result of the ballot was 92% accept and 8% reject with a 50% turnout. 

f) MTC – London and Thames Valley 

• Pay. Whilst MTC have proposed a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain more staff across London and Thames Valley, where the problem continues to undermine workloads and performance, progress on taking forward the issue of pay beyond incremental progression has been very slow. 

• At the time of writing it was hoped that the employer would soon be in a position to make a realistic pay offer to the unions but the business case was awaiting central clearance. 

g) RRP: Staffordshire West Midlands and Derby, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland 

• Pay. At the time of writing the company CEO is hoping to be in a position to make a formal pay offer to the unions once the business case has been cleared. The pay offer is only from October 2020 onwards but is a better position than was originally offered. Napo are working with RRP to push the MoJ into signing off the proposal as soon as possible. 

h) WWM CRC: Warwickshire West Mercia 

• Pay. WWM have only been able to make incremental progression payments and have been slow to address the wider issues of excessive workloads and staff shortages. At the time of writing a business case has been made for the opening of formal pay talks in September when the CRC believes it may be in a position to offer an increase for the last 6 months of their contract running from January 2021 until June. 

16. National NPS JNC and TU Engagement Meetings 

a) Privatisation of NPS Approved Premises - Double Waking Night Cover 

• Napo has continually raised the issues arising from the privatisation of DWNC at senior levels of the NPS and with Ministers. The results of a review of the project is expected later this year and we have made it clear that we do not believe that these contracts should be extended. 

• Regular reports on the impact of these flawed arrangements have been made to the PNC by the National Link Officer Siobhan Foreman (Vice-Chair) on which valuable feedback has been provided by PNC members. 

b) Approved Premises – Transition of Approved Premises to Community Interventions 

Regular reports on the progress of this project have been made to the PNC by the National Link Officer Siobhan Foreman (Vice-Chair) on which valuable feedback has been provided by PNC members. 

c) AP Staff Rota 

Trade unions have regularly raised issues around the impact of the national rota and this is now under review at the AP TU meetings. 

d) AP Pay Issues Update 

The unions have raised the issues around inconsistencies with pay in particular pay- protection, toil, overtime, unsocial hours and SSCL errors. 

e) National Facility time agreement update 

• The NPS presented an offer calculated on the basis of Cabinet Office rules i.e. the entitlement to facilities is a proportion of the pay bill. We have not yet accepted this and continue to discuss the actual allocation of time needed to support the employer in their reform programme. 

• The emergency measures introduced as a result of C-19 has meant that Napo has successfully sought additional time for our representatives to undertake Health and Safety duties. 

• Once circumstances allow it is intended to resume the negotiations and it is hoped that the introduction of a new Regional structure within the NPS will facilitate these exchanges. The changes to branch structure will further support negotiations at regional level. 

f) Offender Management in Custody 

• This has been a complex and difficult issue and the following summary reports the position that has been reached at the time of writing. 

• The consultation process. Napo have been consulted by the employer on the plans to implement OMiC. This is a consultation not a negotiation and although we can raise concerns and make suggestions and requests, we are not in a position to agree (or fail to agree) the plans. We are aware that many members have significant concerns over the fundamental design of OMiC and we have communicated these concerns. 

• The implementation process. There are Divisional Implementation Boards (DiBs) which are made up of both prison and probation representatives. These boards have now all submitted their OMiC implementation plans and Napo reps should have been consulted on this locally via the NPS JCC (Joint Consultative Committee) for the division/region. 

• The Women’s Estate. The model for the Women’s Estate varies in that the allocation of resource is based on complexity of need rather than risk. In the most complex cases (around 19% of the total) the POM will carry out the key work rather than having a separate keyworker allocated. This, it is hoped, will aid continuity and relationship building. 

• The contracted out estate. These are the privately run prisons and the original plan was to require (via the contracting process) them to have an SPO who holds a Probation Qualification but not to require these prisons to have Qualified Probation Officers holding cases as POMs. More work was undertaken on the plans for the contracted out estate following representations that Napo and the NPS senior leaders have made about this. Napo’s position is that Offender Management should only be done by someone who has the appropriate skills and qualification for the role they are carrying out and who are offered the appropriate support and remuneration for doing so. 

• The current position is that there will be POMs with a Probation qualification in each contracted out prison and they will either hold high risk cases or oversee the work done on these cases using the Case Management Support model. This does not necessarily have to be a member of NPS staff however it is reported that most of the private prisons have requested a staff loan/secondment arrangement from the NPS which will have a further impact on staffing. 

• Workloads for SPOs and POs working in OMiC 

The current method for looking at SPO workload is on a ratio basis. In community teams this is 1:10 FTE (full time equivalent). Under the OMiC model it will be up to 1:14 FTE. This means that some prison SPOs will have a high workload in terms of team members reporting to them in addition to the other tasks they need to undertake in their role. Napo have made representations on this, as well as the fact that the SPOs will be managing a team made up of staff from differing employers who will have different terms and conditions and potentially differing expectations in terms of line management. We will continue to press the employer on these issues and a review is underway. 

• The introduction of EDMs during the Covid-19 crisis highlighted the issues relating to NPS SPOs being line managed by Prison Governors. There have been reported tensions between expectations of prisons and NPS and the plans for line management have not been fully implemented as yet. We continue to use every opportunity to press HMPPS to rethink this part of the model. 

• IT solutions. There is a new IT based allocation system for use in prisons. This is to assist with the allocation of cases to either Prison staff OMs or NPS OMs within the team. The tool has been tested with some users and further work and testing will be carried out. Napo have asked that this tool is properly tested for AT compliance by end users before it is rolled out. We have also asked if an aspect of workload measurement can be built in to further assist the SPO will allocation decisions and this is in progress. Further work is being done on digital tools for the project and we are being consulted on them. 

g) Workloads 

• Workloads remain a critical issue across probation. It is hoped that the reunification of the service will allow for a wholesale review of the workload measurement and management process and the mis-match between demand and staffing levels in both CRCs (where they have not recovered from often cutting staff at the start of contracts) and the NPS (where they have not recruited enough POs after under-estimating how much work would remain in the NPS at the time of the original staff split). 

• Current data is still being gathered from CRCs, but at time writing there is a 23% + vacancy rate for POs across the NPS. Napo’s work in the wider reunification campaign has featured the fact that staff routinely report a normal case load allocation that places them at 130-140% on the workload measurement tool. This is dangerous and unsustainable. 

• Napo have also issued guidance to branches and members about how to protect themselves from excessive workload, including how to serve a foreseeability notice on their employer ahead of likely injury. 

• PNC has also focused much discussion on the particular pressures that increased workload and excessive additional HR burdens have placed on SPOs in CRCs and especially the NPS. Overloading SPOs creates wider problems – mistakes occur that stall HR processes; local employee relations become tense, reducing engagement and productivity levels; staff feel unsupported or isolated so become more prone to mistakes; and higher than expected sickness amongst SPOs has a disproportionate multiplying factor on all the other challenges. 

h) Serious Further Offence (SFO) procedures

 • There continue to be a number of high profile (as well as less high profile) SFOs coming to light. Napo has supported members who have been involved in resulting processes such as capability and disciplinary as well as those called to give evidence in Coroner’s Courts. HMPPS has consulted on both updates to SFO investigation and reporting guidance (making this more streamlined and the report more of a narrative than tick box as well as updating disclosure guidance) and updated guidance to support managers who, as a result of information that comes to light in an SFO process, need to consider taking action using either capability or disciplinary processes. 

• Throughout these consultations we have successfully argued for the consideration of workloads and have ensured that managers are always prompted to consider ‘no action necessary’ as an outcome. SFO investigations are necessary to ensure that organisations learn from these tragic events. We support all efforts to do this, especially where lessons can be learned by the organisation(s) involved however we will use whatever steps necessary to protect members from being unfairly scape-goated for organisational and systemic failings.

An Inspector Calls 2

8 - OVERALL RATINGS ROUND ONE 

Our results 

So, what were the key findings on our first round of inspections last year? First, you won’t be surprised to hear, we found a significant gap between the performance of National Probation Service divisions and CRC services. Of the 7 NPS divisions, we gave an overall rating of ‘good’ to five – although we found real issues with probation officer vacancies and facilities management contracts where our ratings were lower. 

By contrast, only 1 out of the 21 CRC services got this rating, with 19 rated as requiring improvement. Whilst we often found good and committed leadership in CRC services and a commitment to investing in decent accommodation and IT and other equipment for staff, this was all too frequently undermined by what we regarded as unacceptably large caseloads, which too often made good quality casework all but impossible. 

9 - CASELOADS 

Whereas two thirds of NPS responsible officers had a caseload of 40 or less – the situation was exactly the reverse for the CRC staff we spoke to – two thirds of whom had a caseload of over 50. Forty two percent had caseloads over 60 and significant minorities over 70 and into the eighties. 

10 - IMPACT OF CASELOADS STORIES 

The impact of this on some of the staff we spoke to was clear. Some were in tears as we spoke to them. Others spoke of being burnt out and of having to work evenings and weekends to keep their head above water. 

11 - CORRELATION OF QUALITY RATINGS AND CASELOAD

Not surprisingly, we found a clear correlation between size of caseload and our rating of the quality of work done. As caseload increases, the proportion of staff saying their caseload is manageable sharply declines and our judgements on the quality of supervision also drops. Whilst this may not have amounted to a crisis – and we only gave one CRC a rating of inadequate in our first set of inspections – it certainly indicates a service that in places was under great stress. 

12 - IMPACT OF TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION 

And that stress was becoming greater as the flaws in the CRC funding model started to play out over the past couple of years. As a result of fundamental flaws in that model – in particular very flawed assumptions around the ratio of fixed to variable costs and of the income that would flow from payment by results - CRCs have received far less funding from MoJ for each case they supervise than the NPS. 

The NAO calculated in March last year that the MoJ will end up paying CRCs £822m less over the 7 year lifetime of the contracts than it had originally forecast it would (and that the Treasury had been willing to spend). That has meant that some CRCs have fallen far short of what they need to provide a decent service. 

The issue for me, is not that staff working for a private company or non-profit provider, can’t deliver a decent service – I’ve met many talented and very committed managers and staff on my visits to CRCs. It’s that they can’t do this if they’re not receiving the funding they need to make caseloads manageable and to recruit and retain the skilled probation officers needed to manage the more complex work. Two other inherent aspects of private provision, add to the problem. 

First, in order to outsource probation, a very complex business with many hundreds of moving parts, has to be turned into 21 different contracts. And if any of the assumptions underlying these contracts are wrong, as they’ve turned out to be, then it can take months, if not years to renegotiate the necessary changes – if indeed these changes can be made at all under contract law. In the meantime, performance and the income needed to support that, continues to be problematic. 

And second, because the great majority of the CRC contracts are owned by large parent companies – some of them with multinational interests –they can be brought crashing down by the wider failure of the parent company – as happened at the beginning of last year when Working Links, the owner of three large CRC contracts, went into administration. 

These challenges around the contracts have affected different providers in different ways. Whilst some were cautious in their initial bids; took action early on to rein in costs and have seen their financial position stabilised by contract changes in 2018 – others have been in a much more perilous position and even with the contractual changes have seen significant cuts in their operating budgets this year compared to last which has had a real impact on the quality of service we are finding they’re able to deliver. 

When you add the impact of Covid into the mix, on top of these major challenges around outsourcing, it’s perhaps not surprising that the Government has now decided that the safest way forward is to abandon the planned re-procurement of unpaid work and behavioural change programmes and return delivery of these to the public sector from June 2019. 

As I said on the day this was announced, whilst this is likely to be welcomed by many, it is not a magic bullet for improving performance by itself. The probation service must be properly funded. The quality of probation supervision will not improve merely by lifting and shifting large volumes of cases from CRCs back into the NPS next year. Vacancies for probation officers must be filled and staff properly trained for their new responsibilities. The positive innovations that CRCs have brought with them – must not be lost.” 

Year two of inspection 

In the meantime, while we wait for next year’s reforms and almost one year on from our first round of inspections, is there any sign that things have improved? 

13 - YEAR 2 OVERALL RATINGS TO DATE 

Well there are some grounds for optimism but it’s still a pretty mixed picture. Since September 2019, we have been re-inspecting the services we visited in 2018 and 2019 – starting with the CRCs and using broadly the same methodology. So far we have published the results of nine of these local inspections and I wanted to give you an overview of what this is showing so far. 

In terms of overall ratings, all 9 of these CRCs were judged to be requiring improvement in our first round of inspections against the new standards. Our year two ratings, show that three of these nine have now improved their overall rating to ‘good’. One other was just one point off being rated ‘good’. Whilst the remaining four have seen little shift in their scores and remain a concern. 

14 - STANDARDS BREAKDOWN 

Across the nine services, we assigned ratings to 90 individual quality standards – 10 at each service. Looking at the distribution of markings across these 90 standards, we see an upward trend in performance with a majority of standards – 48 out of 90 – now rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ compared to 35 previously and a small drop in the number rated as ‘inadequate’ from 22 to 20. 

15 - SHOWING YEAR 1 VS YEAR 2 – AVERAGE STANDARD SCORES 

We can also compare the average scores for each quality standard to last year. First, the good news. Comparing this year’s average scores for each standard with last year’s we see that these services continue to be rated reasonably positively on their overall leadership; on the menu of services they offer and on the quality of facilities and IT for staff. [A score of 2 is equivalent to a ‘good’ rating]. 

On through the gate services, we are seeing positive signs that the investment of an extra £22m a year by the Ministry of Justice in supporting prisoners being released from custody, is paying real dividends, with 6 out of 9 CRCs we’ve inspected so far being rated as ‘outstanding’ on this aspect of their work. 

With the extra money, CRCs have been able to put significantly more staff into prisons and to strike innovative deals with voluntary sector partners to provide more specialist help with accommodation and mentoring services, so that more (though still only a minority) of the highest need individuals can be met at the gate and supported through the first days after release. 

16 - SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN TTG – DTV EXAMPLE 

Durham and Tees Valley CRC, for example, has seen its rating for through the gate work improve from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘outstanding’ over the past year, with much better and more personalised resettlement planning. 

17 - DTV EXAMPLE – ‘MARY’ 

And this fed through into the individual cases we inspected as well – like this one for someone we have called ‘Mary’. And we found similar examples in the East and West Midlands, South Yorkshire and Thames Valley, even where other aspects of these services gave cause for concern. 

Offender management 

18 - AVERAGE STANDARDS SCORES 

But the picture on core offender management is less positive. Across the four key stages of the supervision process that we inspect – initial assessment; sentence and risk planning; sentence delivery and ongoing review – we’ve seen little shift in average scores. In four of the CRCs we inspected, we found more than half of the cases we inspected to be ‘inadequate’ in terms of core supervision – with five out of nine CRCs being rated ‘inadequate’ across all four case supervision standards. 

A clear gap has started to emerge between different providers, with some continuing to invest in trained probation officers and manageable caseloads and others going backwards. Once again, we seem to be finding an association between workloads and quality. All of the CRCs we’ve given a rating of ‘good’ to, for example, report caseloads for both POs and PSOs of 50 or less – with probation officer caseloads in South Yorkshire and Durham and Tees Valley, now under 40. 

19 - SHOWING ‘MANAGEABLE CASELOAD %’ 

But overall, we haven’t seen a shift in the average proportion of responsible officers telling us they feel their caseloads are manageable – if anything this has got slightly worse, particularly for PSOs with over half of probation officers and PSOs now saying they think their caseloads are unmanageable – though this hides a wide variation between services. 

In one service we found almost 70% of POs were struggling; in another, 83% of PSOs told us their caseloads were unmanageable . Although at the opposite end of the range, in one of the best performing areas only a third thought this was the case. We were worried to see that in a few of the services we have re-inspected, there has been an increasing shift of caseloads from more skilled and experienced probation officers – whose numbers are declining – to recently recruited and less highly trained PSOs – who have been easier (and cheaper) to recruit. It was particularly concerning to find PSOs, some of them only recruited in the previous 6 months, being expected to take on more complex, medium risk domestic violence cases, which up to now had been reserved for experienced probation officers. 

CASE OF PAUL 

And as in our first round of inspections, the impact of all this on the individual cases we inspect was often very evident – as for example with this complex IOM case being supervised by a PSO whose caseload was still in the high seventies, having been over 90 at one point.

Latest From Napo 217

Here we have an edited version of the latest Napo bulletin posted out this evening:-

CRCs have an important role to play in the transition process

The announcement on June 13th that the Probation service is to be fully reunified by June next year has understandably seen some mixed reactions from the CRC owners. Napo’s early engagement with senior CRC leaders has nevertheless been positive in terms of a mutual understanding that the uncertainties amongst CRC staff need to be addressed quickly.

In previous mail outs we have explained our negotiating priorities, one of which is the need to get early assurances from Ministers that all CRC staff who are involved in the delivery and management of Probation services should receive an offer of employment in the NPS upon transfer in 2021.

This issue, along with the need to finalise the new Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement prior to a members' ballot has been the subject of extensive discussions between your senior negotiators and the NPS/HMPPS. We will bring you more news as soon as we can.

Meanwhile here is a round-up of some of the discussions that have been taking place across the CRC estate

Kent Surrey and Sussex CRCs/Seetec (including ex-Working Links owned CRCs)

Wales Having gone through the transition of sentence management into the NPS Cymru branch are well placed to advise on the potential problems that lie ahead for the rest of England. SEETEC for their part have moved quickly to engage with the unions on the steps that will need to be put in place for the transition process as well as their emerging plans for recovery following the C-19 Lockdown. This has led to some constructive early engagement across both arms of the expanded KSS CRC which also covers Wales and the South West regions. Our new National Official lead Annoesjka Valent has wasted no time in establishing engagement with the employer and support for our local Napo reps.

Interserve CRCs

Napo Interserve reps have been involved in pay negotiations and at the time of writing the unions await some final clarification on a pay offer and will be consulting with members very soon. Since lockdown Napo has been meeting more frequently with the employer and National Official Sarah Friday reports that significant progress has been made on a number of issues including annual leave carry over and paid special leave for staff impacted by the C-19 pandemic and individual risk assessments.

Sodexo CRCs

Business Recovery Plans: Sodexo in common with other CRCs has confirmed to Napo that they will not be operating UPW without first consulting the unions and having in place a fully formed plan that maintains staff health and wellbeing and the safety of Service users and Beneficiaries. Acting assistant GS Ranjit Singh reports that the company has given a commitment that as the organisation moves to develop a whole business recovery plan it will involve national trade union representatives and consultation with local reps at an early stage. A pay offer covering two years has recently been overwhelmingly accepted by Napo members.

Durham Tees Valley CRC

Again good progress has been reported on the employer’s approach to staff well-being and support from the employers business partners to staff. DTV CRC has made an early commitment to meet regularly with the unions to discuss their exit plan from the EDM. A pay deal covering 2020/21 and 2021/22 was recently overwhelmingly accepted by members. This, and the earlier settlements across SEETEC and Sodexo has raised the stakes in terms of yet to be concluded pay negotiations with other CRC providers. 

MTC – London and Thames Valley CRCs

Early engagement has taken place with senior MTC management on their plans for recovering unpaid work services in the first instance and wider operations involving a gradual increase in face to face supervision. Meetings are also underway to look at the considerable challenges posed by the transition of services and staff into the NPS next year. Following some initial difficulties there has recently been constructive dialogue on how the parties can move forward on a partnership basis to the tasks ahead of us.  Talks on pay are also expected to commence again very soon and Napo has made our aims very clear in this respect.

RRP CRCs: Staffordshire West Midlands and East Midlands

Encouraging progress on recovery planning has been reported by National Official Tania Bassett, but Pay talks with RRP got off to a very bad start. Following an intervention by Ian Lawrence General Secretary who wrote to the RRP Board to express Napo’s disappointment, pay negotiations have recently resumed and more news from the employer is expected soon.

Warwickshire West Mercia CRC

A similar position has been reported in terms of engagement with the employer and Pay talks are due to commence soon after a long delay, which Napo has told the employer is simply unacceptable.

Time for Napo H&S Reps to help the recovery process

Following a personal commitment from Probation Director General Amy Rees to the General Secretary that additional time should be granted to union representatives involved in the recovery discussions with NPS Divisions, Napo has forwarded the names of existing Health and Safety reps as well as a welcome number of new reps who have come through the excellent training organised by Sarah Friday.

We need union collaboration on Health and Safety

Our National Officials are also in touch with CRC owners to encourage them to mirror these arrangements. Ian Lawrence says: ‘I am greatly encouraged by the enthusiasm being shown by our vital network of local safety reps who are stepping forward to help secure the safety of staff in the recovery process. I should also make it clear that I expect a collaborative approach to be taken between the recognised unions in this respect and that Napo has an important role to play as we look to combine our resources across all employers.’

Napo HQ

Latest From Napo 208

The following Bulletin 12 was sent to members late yesterday and can be found on the website:- 

Napo maintains pressure on CRC pay

Over the last few months Napo negotiators have achieved some important breakthroughs in our longstanding campaign to seek pay parity for our members employed in the Community Rehabilitation Companies. This has been a difficult task to say the least, and the levels of engagement between CRC employers and the unions have seen a mixture of positive outcomes alongside some very disappointing responses.

Below is a summary outlining what has been achieved so far:

SEETEC

SEETEC KSS CRC eventually made a pay offer at the turn of the year covering staff across all of their regions for 2020/2021. The offer followed a marked improvement in industrial relations between senior SEETEC Management and the unions and was a major factor in the offer being possible. This was in stark contrast to the attitudes and practices that were demonstrated by Working Links when they operated in the CRC areas that SEETEC took over in February 2019.

SEETEC KSS CRC were the first employer to declare that they were prepared to match the current NPS pay rates; a signal breakthrough for Napo in our long running campaigns to achieve pay parity across both arms of the Probation service. The offer tacitly recognised the need to motivate and retain existing staff and also make the company more attractive to potential employees. Indeed, within days of the pay offer becoming public, Napo learned of a number of employees from a neighbouring CRC leaving to take on better paid jobs with Seetec. General Secretary Ian Lawrence adds: “This should serve as a serious warning to all of Seetecs competitors or any would be bidders for new Probation Contracts.”

Union members subsequently voted by a huge majority to agree to the realignment of all salary bands to the current NPS Pay Scales. This resulted in 74% of the workforce receiving an increase of 4% or above, and 52% of the workforce receiving an increase of 5% or above.

While this settlement brought the pay dispute to a welcome end, the unions have reserved the right to make further representations if pay developments elsewhere warrant this.

Durham Tess Valley CRC.

The DTV CRC pay deal for 2020/21 and 2021/22 covers the remaining 15 months to contract end in June 2021, the pay deal provides a guaranteed minimum pay award of 6%, payable from April 2020 and assimilation onto the NPS pay scales. This means that the new pay scales will significantly reduce the time to progress through each pay band and the value of progression will be larger than in the current pay structure. Also, the offer guarantees each member of staff a minimum increase of 6% and some staff will receive a greater increase.

As this offer met our demand that the pay scales at DTV CRC are aligned to the NPS. Napo recommended acceptance of the pay offer and as a consequence Napo members voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer. The result of the ballot was 92% accept and 8% reject with a 50% turnout.

Sodexo

The Sodexo Pay Offer covers the six Sodexo CRCs (Northumbria, Cumbria & Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Essex, BeNCH and Norfolk & Suffolk). The pay offer covers the years 2020/21 and 2021/22 (contract end). This offer is for a two year pay deal and is being made following the work undertaken in previous years to modernise the pay structure so staff will reach the top of the scale within a much shorter timeframe.

The main terms of the offer are below:

2020/21 Pay Offer
2.5% Non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band
A minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a non-consolidated payment will be made.

2021/22 Pay Offer
2.5% Non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band
A minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a non-consolidated payment will be made.

Despite not meeting all the unions’ aspirations Napo and UNISON believe that this is the best deal achievable by negotiation taking into account the unique circumstances we find ourselves in because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the unions did not make a recommendation to members and it is up to the members to decide. A ballot on the offer has been initiated and will conclude on the 27 April and members will decide to accept or reject the offer.

MTC

Pay talks commenced in February. The first session since the imposition of a pay award last year backdated to April 2019 which saw Staff moved up one spinal point and a non-consolidated payment of 1%, staff at the top of their scale received a 2% payment. The back pay element of the agreement was only relevant to basic pay not overtime or allowances.

The theme of disappointment continued as MTC declared that their ability fund a pay award for 2020/21 was challenging. Napo stated that if MTC want to invest in people, then they have to pay a going wage, otherwise this would impact on attrition rates in their CRCs in London and Thames Valley. It was noted that one of MTC competitors had put out a pay offer to match NPS pay banding. Napo also said that if MTC were among potential bidders for new contracts, the employer needed to do much better on pay.

Interserve

The unions have submitted our claim (CLICK HERE) and employer has provided us with pay data, but they haven't done the work to cost our claim. For this reason a meeting to discuss the claim was postponed from this week. It will now take place in the coming week.

WWM

Pay talks are still delayed and the unions are pressing for engagement to take place soon, but the unions have submitted the joint pay claim referenced below. A further update will follow once there is more news to report.

RRP

Pay discussions have got underway after a long delay, but have not got off to a good start with the employer claiming that the company are unable to fund an additional pay award beyond the cost of annual increments .

Napo and our sister unions are now consulting with members to test their views on a range of responses, but the next step will probably be an approach to the RRP Board to express members’ disappointment. Napo will also point out that if RRP see themselves as serious potential bidders for the intended Intervention and Programme Contracts from June 2020 they will be lagging seriously behind their likely competitors.

Napo Evidence Part Two

Annex 1 - OPERATION OF THE COMMUNITY REHABILITATION COMPANIES 

Eight employer groups currently hold contracts to run the 21 CRCs. These are Sodexo (6), Interserve (5), Working Links (3), RRP (2), MCT Novo (2), Seetec (1), People Plus (1) and ARCC (1). 

1. Sodexo 

Sodexo holds the contract for six CRCs: Northumbria; South Yorkshire; Cumbria & Lancashire; Essex; BeNCH (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, and Northamptonshire); and Norfolk & Suffolk. 

There are two management structures: Northumbria, South Yorkshire and Cumbria & Lancashire are managed by the Northern CEO; and Essex, BeNCH and Norfolk & Suffolk are managed by the Southern CEO. 

In 2015 Napo produced a critical analysis of the proposed Sodexo Operational model. This report gave a fair and balanced view of the proposed new approach and its focus on desistance. However, as reported by the HMIP the operating model has not been fully implemented across the Sodexo CRCs as the implementation depends on the IT enabled Operational Model Management System (OMS) and Justice Star being activated. Also, members report that the supply chain (2nd & 3rd Tier Providers) that should undertake significant work with clients hasn’t happened. 

A recent joint union survey shows that only 9% of respondents said that they were clear about how changes introduced by the employer would work in practice. In addition, an employer survey carried out across the six Sodexo owned CRCs gave similar results showing that staff are disillusioned. Only headline figures from this report have been shared with the unions but there is acknowledgement from the employer that more needs to be done to engage with staff. 

Sodexo was the first of the new privatised companies to announce staff reductions. This huge organizational change process caused massive disruption to service delivery. FTE staff in post across the CRCs has fallen between 51% and 32%. 

CRC Employed staff FTE* Employed Staff FTE** Difference FTE % Change 

Northumbria                    316 155 161 51% 

BeNCH                            385 250 135 35% 

South Yorkshire               233 153 80 34% 

Cumbria and Lancashire 337 201 136 40% 

Essex                               279 167 112 41% 

Norfolk and Suffolk          190 130 60 32% 

* Staff in Post FTE figures CRC Workforce Information Summary Report: Quarter 3 2014/15 ** Staff in Post FTE Notified by the employer June 2017 

The reduction in staff and the failure to implement the new operating model has had a corresponding detrimental impact on workloads. This has had a massive impact on staff well-being and health and safety. Surveys have been carried out by Napo that show the stark position facing staff. A recent joint union survey carried out by Napo and UNISON showed that 85% of respondents said that they often or always have to work very intensively. 72% said that they often or always have to work very fast and 62% often or always have to neglect some tasks because they have too much to do. High workloads and stress caused to members have a direct consequence on the ability of the organisation to carry out its core function to protect the public and reduce reoffending. (The full findings from the survey can be made available to the Committee on request). 

Of particular concern is the use of “booths” as part of the Sodexo operating plan. The booths are “burger style” interview pens, Napo alongside its sister union has raised concerns about the use of booths in a probation setting from the start. The unions in all six Sodexo CRCs are currently in dispute with the employer on Health and Safety grounds about their use. Moreover, the unions have reported Sodexo to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in order to address our concerns about the use of booths and a potential breach of the Data Protection Act. 

Overall the following the paragraph written by HMIP in their report on Cumbria & Lancashire CRC (October 2017) can be applied to all the Sodexo CRCs and sums up the current situation: “Poor working conditions in some offices and the open-plan booths we have found in Sodexo Owned CRCs elsewhere made things difficult for service users and staff alike. Also, the CRC’s supply chain of services –those support it commissions from the community organisations, in both the private and voluntary, third sectors - was too thin”.

2. Interserve 

There are five Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) owned by Interserve, Cheshire and Greater Manchester, Hampshire and Isle of Wight, HLNY (Humberside/Lincolnshire/North Yorkshire), Merseyside and West Yorkshire. The situation across these five CRCs is as follows: 

Staffing

Experienced staff continue to leave the Interserve CRCs, some to do agency work (often in the NPS). The staff turnover rate is at 17%, which is very high (average rate is around 10%). The CRC cannot replace the staff it is losing fast enough and therefore it is using agency staff. Training new recruits is also proving a challenge. There are high levels of sickness absence due to workload stress which then impacts on the already high workloads of the remaining team members. 

Job cuts 

In total there has been a reduction of around 206 members of staff since February 2015. At the beginning of 2016 Interserve Justice announced a major restructure and re-organisation across their five CRCs. As a consequence the total number of Interserve staff reduced by 143.

Well reported financial problems in the Interserve parent company have led to it commencing consultation on merging corporate service functions across its three business units within the Interserve Citizen’s Services Division (which includes Interserve Justice). The company estimate this will lead to approximately 80 jobs being shed across the units. This will impact on CRC staff seconded to shared services. 

Additionally Interserve has announced that they are going to close the Fareham PSC (probation support centre). It is anticipated up to 10 CRC staff seconded to the Fareham office could be effected by the closure of the Fareham PSC as will a further 13 members of staff directly employed by Interserve. 

It will also mean Intervention Managers/SPOs in the CRCs taking on additional corporate service functions in addition to the HR responsibilities that have been added to their job descriptions. This in turn will impact on their pivotal role for the Interserve Justice Interchange flex team model to work. 

Workloads 

The reduction in the number of staff has been one of the issues that have led to very high workloads for the remaining staff. 

Results of a Joint Napo/UNISON Members Stress Survey carried out in March of this year showed that workloads, deadlines and work pressure are very significant issues for our members employed on the Interserve CRCs: 

• 89% of respondents said that they often or always have to work very intensively 
• 70% often or always has to neglect some tasks because they have too much to do. 
• 61% often or always considered themselves to have unrealistic time pressures are hard to combine 
• 47% considered that they were pressured to work long hours. 
• 46% believed that they often or always have unachievable deadlines. 

(The full survey results can be made available to the Committee on request) 

Quality and performance 

The following Interserve CRCs have been partially inspected by the HMIP since the TR was implemented: 

HLNY CRC - on the whole this as a good report. The inspectorate noted that the problems caused by the TR programme in other areas had not impacted to the same extent, with “business as usual” and less obvious evidence of the “dissonance” they had seen elsewhere. However, this inspection was undertaken before Interserve’s ‘interchange model’ had been introduced. 

Cheshire and Greater Manchester - the report says that; ”Overall, the CRC had not protected those at risk of harm sufficiently” … “A notable number of inexperienced responsible officers reported that the level of training provided by the CRC was not sufficient to help them develop the required skills to complete high quality assessments and plans." 

Operating models 

The Interserve model included significant staffing cuts and the outsourcing of some probation services to Interserve’s Professional Service Centres (PSCs). The recently announced closure of the Fareham PSC calls this model into question. 

Ian Mullholland, Interserve Director of Justice wrote to CRC staff on 10 November explaining the operational reason for deciding to close the Fareham PSC: “The responsibility for managing the delivery of interventions in our Community Rehabilitation Companies is fragmented. Currently different job roles hold different parts of the process and there are areas of duplication and competing priorities. I listened to feedback from you, and it is clear that the model has reduced the level of CRC ownership over the delivery of interventions and the crucial job of aligning staff and resources”. 

"The vision for the PSC delivery of programmes was to create a central team to coordinate all service users, programme tutors and resources to maximise service user attendance and completion. This was dependent on establishing a new IT system, but – for a variety of reasons – we are unable to achieve this at this time." 

Another key aspect of the Interserve's Interchange model is the flex teams. Napo has questioned this operation model saying that in members’ view it places disproportionate pressures on PSO grade staff who have been directed to fulfil a dual role managing high caseloads and delivering Accredited Programmes. Role changes for PO grade staff have resulted in those affected exiting the organisation and PSOs managing cases that they are neither trained nor appropriately remunerated for. 

IT 

Interserve Justice ‘Interchange model’ is very reliant on new IT systems, which staff report frequently ‘go down’ leaving them unable to access Delius and OASys for long periods. This has an impact on meeting targets, risk and enforcement issues. 

3. Working Links 

Working Links owns BGSW (Bristol, Gloucester, Somerset and Wiltshire) CRC; Dorset, Devon and Cornwall CRC and Wales CRC. 

Unfortunately we must report that the Working Links Partnership under the ownership of Aurelius has been the subject of a dispute with recognised trade unions for some 20 months. 

The genesis of the dispute was the decision to reduce staffing provision by some 50% in the first year of the contract and the failure of the provider to recognise the terms of the Staff Transfer and Protection Agreement and a lack of serious engagement with the unions on collective bargaining issues. 

Despite the best efforts of senior ACAS officials and highly experienced trade union negotiators talks to resolve the outstanding issues in respect of the operational model across the three CRC contracts in Devon Dorset and Cornwall, Bristol Gloucester Somerset and Wiltshire and Wales are at something of an impasse. 

Meanwhile, Napo has had no option but to respond to the considerable media interest that has highlighted the failings of Working Links in the supervision of clients and management of resources. This has followed two seriously critical HMIP reports in Gwent and Gloucester, one Serious Further Offence resulting in the murder of a young person by a perpetrator who had missed several appointments, and another being the subject of a current court case, the use of a public library to interview probation clients (where children were nearby), and a well-documented case of substandard supervision of a client undertaking unpaid work due to insufficient staffing resources being available to maintain appropriate standards. 

Indeed, Napo are receiving regular reports of problems in relation to the organisation and delivery of Community Payback along with excessive workloads and extraordinary levels of staff sickness. 

We have told Ministers and HMPPS contract managers that unless this this provider can urgently demonstrate an ability to deliver against contract and engage with its staff in a dignified way, then consideration must be given to removing them from the three contracts that they are responsible for. 

4. RRP (Reducing Re-offending Partnership) 

RRP (Reducing Reoffending Partnership) owns two CRCs, Staffordshire West Midlands (SWM) and Derby, Leicestershire, Nottingham and Rutland (DLNR). The organisation is made up of a private employment company Ingeus, a private employment company with current DWP contracts, St Giles Trust, a criminal justice charity and CGL, formerly CRI a substance misuse provider. Ingeus is the leading partner in this organisation. 

In 2016 the organisation embarked on a staff reduction programme that saw 77 posts being made redundant. There were concerns at the time raised by Napo that these cuts were disproportionately impacting on DLNR as they had the least favourable redundancy policy. Since making these cuts there has been some recognition that the staff reductions were too large and RRP has since had to recruit in the DLNR area. 

The cuts have had a sizeable impact on the organisation’s ability to maintain standards. The HMIP report on Staffordshire and Stoke in January 2017 highlighted this issue stating that workloads were very high. On average staff in Stoke hold 90-100 cases each. 100% of administrators were made redundant in Staffordshire as RRP moved to a central hub model of case administration across the organisation. This has caused significant issue for frontline staff. 

Napo is carrying out a workload survey in RRP. (Final results for the survey can be made available to the committee on request). Initial findings show that: 

• 91% of staff said they are consistently overworked. 
• 79% said that workloads impact on public protection 
• 73% said workloads impact on safeguarding issues 
• 77% said that workloads adversely affect their ability to reduce re-offending 

RRP are currently going through a second wave of redundancies, this time within corporate services as opposed to frontline staff. They state that despite receiving additional money from the Ministry of Justice in the summer there are still significant shortfalls in their finances. As such they are reducing corporate services to avoid having to make further cuts to the frontline. There are currently 50 posts at risk of redundancy, although it is hoped this can be reduced to 30 if internal opportunities are utilised. 

A further exercise to reduce costs is being carried out with RRP’s estates. They are in the process of closing down all of the probation offices in the Black Country with the exception of Wolverhampton. Napo is deeply concerned about the impact this will have on staff due to travelling, especially those with caring responsibilities or disabilities. More worrying is the impact this will have on service users who will be expected to make much longer journeys in order to comply with their order. 

5. MCT Novo 

MCT Novo owns London CRC and Thames Valley CRC. There is an on-going re-inspection of MTC Novo and the NPS performance in the London area, following the hugely critical inspection of part of the London CRC area in 2016. 

Before the contract sale significant operational challenges, especially around staff recruitment had been identified across London. These have been embedded and amplified by the split, on-going pay freeze and inflexibility in the probation pay system; and by the impact upon morale of working within a service in crisis. Sickness absence rates and turnover have, we believe increased since the split, although hard data on this is rarely shared with unions. 

Competition for the London contract was sparse. We believe only two companies remained as bidders when the contract was let and that MTC Novo had not been expecting to win the London contract. Their operating model was, we believe designed for Thames Valley and applied to London. This involved grouping provision into specialist teams (or cohorts) – e.g. all women offenders managed by the same teams across the contract area; likewise with young males, etc. Although there are workload pressures in the Thames Valley CRC (partly due to recruitment and retention challenges common across the public sector in the area as evidenced by the NPS having to make additional payment to recruit in the Reading and Oxford areas) which we feel are impacting upon the quality of service delivery the is seemingly providing a reasonably stable service. 

However, the cohort model was disastrous in London. Logistically it was never going to work, giving rise to huge variations in caseloads and pressures on staff. As documented in the 2016 HMIP Inspector’s report, this led to corners being cut, record keeping falling dangerously behind and an increase in risk to the public. 

The London CRC is working, increasingly in partnership with staff, to recognise and address the weaknesses but the next HMIP Inspection report will inform the Committee on the scale of progress and the continuing challenges for MTC Novo in London. 

One particularly illustrative case study of the weaknesses in TR delivery and on-going management compared to the aspiration of TR can be seen in the Rise Mutual. This spun out of the TR programme, supported and encouraged by the MoJ, aiming to deliver accredited programmes in innovative and effective ways. Due to the weaknesses in the contract forecasting the expected cases didn’t materialize. This was no different to the rest of the London CRC contract, but the MoJ has now given up on Rise and agreed that MTC Novo (despite limited evidence of expertise and proven performance in accredited programmes or generally), can take over this work with over 80% of Rise CIC members being in scope to transfer to the London CRC. It appears that Rise had successfully won other contracts in competition with MTC Novo in local authorities and prisons and it is for debate if MTC Novo’s motives for taking on this work include driving out a competitor. What is without doubt is that the CRC are in effect the commissioning body now, and as such is monopoly provider/commissioner. This does not look like a sensible model for ensuring public money is spent efficiently.

6. Seetec 

Kent, Surrey, Sussex (KSS) CRC is owned by Seetec. 

On the whole there have been fewer problems in this area than in the other CRCs. A HMIP inspection carried out in October 2016 found that “Kent is doing some excellent work but, the National Probation Service (NPS), who manage higher-risk offenders, is struggling due to staff shortages.. This is in contrast with other areas in England and Wales, where inspectors have so far found the NPS to be generally delivering good work while CRCs are still embedding large-scale organisational change”. 

The inspectors reported that “CRC had adopted a straightforward way of working and had implemented it confidently and quickly. It was committed to involving people fully in planning their own route away from crime, which was impressive. Staff morale was good, with leaders enjoying the confidence of their staff”. 

Napo does however know that the CRC is experiencing now continuing recruitment difficulties and is in competition with the NPS for experienced staff. There are also problems with high workloads as reported by members in the Napo workload and stress survey undertaken in March 2017. 

HMIP did also note however that: “There was certainly more for the CRC to do so that offenders could do unpaid work in the community, and to make sure enough staff were sufficiently well trained so as to be able to do their jobs well and recommended that the CRC took steps to reduce the rate at which people were “stood down”. 

7. People Plus 

Warwickshire West Mercia Community Rehabilitation Company (WWM CRC) is owned by People Plus, a subsidiary company of Staff Line a large private recruitment company that has had DWP contracts. 

Previously Warwickshire and West Mercia were two separate Trusts although there were plans to merge the two areas before TR to align with the increasingly merging police forces. 

Prior to TR both Trusts were rated as being in the top five performing Trusts with the lowest reoffending rates in the country. It is a very rural area which brings with it additional challenges. West Mercia was a flagship Trust for its innovative use of partnership agencies and new ways of working such as care farms and its partnership with Willowdene, a unique intervention. 

Since TR WWM CRC has maintained some of its partnership contracts with Willowdene and YSS. However, due to ongoing financial difficulties these contracts are now being reviewed and reduced as cost saving exercise. 

This was noticed and commented on by HMIP when they carried out their recent inspection. Despite these proving to be effective interventions for reducing reoffending there is not the money to support them. 

This is in part due to the flawed payment mechanism which does not recognise these unique interventions in terms of cash payment. WWM CRC is a good example of how TR has in fact stifled innovation, new ways of working and increasing other providers as oppose to increasing it as was originally hoped for with the ideology behind the reform programme.

In 2016 WWM CRC made frontline staff redundancies of approximately 10%. Whilst this has not had a detrimental impact on caseloads it has had a negative impact on an already demoralised workforce. The recent HMIP report was quite poor for the area. Whilst acknowledging that they are maintaining their contract performance it criticised the quality of work being delivered. It is therefore of great concern that in just three years two highly performing trusts could be reduced to being near the bottom of the performance table. 

This is also reflected in the recently published reoffending rates. WWM CRC is the only CRC that is definitely facing a financial penalty as reoffending rates have significantly increased since contracts began. That is not to say the area has seen an increase in crime but that prior to TR both Trusts were reducing reoffending so effectively, their bench mark was considerably higher than other areas. In truth they had to perform better than good to reap any reward for their efforts. 

This highlights not only that performance has dropped in the area but that the MoJ’s own measurement tool is deeply skewed and does not reflect accurately the real picture of reoffending rates. The CRC is now taking steps to address these issues and is working with unions to understand how things can be improved. However, trust is extremely low between the two parties.

8. ARCC 

Durham Tees Valley (DTV) CRC is owned by a not for profit consortium called ARCC. 

Since Transforming Rehabilitation the CRC has faced substantial financial pressures and embarked upon a massive reorganisation, this has resulted in disruption to service delivery and had a detrimental impact on staff morale. These changes were introduced without full and proper consultation with the unions. This resulted in Napo together with our sister union registering a dispute on the failure to follow the recognised and established consultation process. In addition, the Service Delivery Model adopted by DTV CRC incorporates “agile working” and delivery through “community hubs” the unions have raised serious concerns on health and safety grounds for both staff and members of the public using those community venues.