Homelessness and the MoJ

Homelessness is at last becoming an issue that can no longer be ignored and as usual Frances Crook and the Howard League are in the vanguard of the debate. This piece is from inews:- 

We’re imprisoning homeless people for ‘annoying’ crimes – then giving them a tent on release

Some prisoners have been given tents when they are released because the local community rehabilitation company failed to find them accommodation. An investigation by councils in the North East found local homeless men had been released from prison and all they had been offered was a tent. In 2016 the chief inspector of prisons found that women released from Bronzefield prison, run by the French food company Sodexo, were given tents or sleeping bags on release.

Each year, some 60,000 men and women are given short prison sentences of less than six months. They tend to be convicted of annoying, minor offences and are often homeless, addicted and have health and mental health problems. When Chris Grayling privatised the part of the probation service that supervises community sentences, he gave private companies the additional responsibility of supervising these people. If they fail to turn up to appointments or phone in, they can be returned to prison for three weeks. They are often the homeless people we are now stepping over in the street in exploding numbers.

Sent away with £46 

Prisoners are given a discharge grant of £46 in cash, a sum that has not been increased for decades. The community rehabilitation companies are meant to do ‘through the gate’ support and find accommodation but, as the chief inspector of probation has reported, they are simply not doing it. People given a custodial remand, the majority of whom do not get a prison sentence, are given no support and no money, they can simply be pushed out of prison without even the tent. 

We all know, by experience and from evidence, that former prisoners need somewhere to live, something to do all day, and someone to care for them. The Howard League legal team fights every day to get children and young adults the support they need to lead law-abiding and positive lives, and housing is the often the biggest challenge we face. 

Trapped in a cycle of homelessness and prison 

The failure to build social housing for rent across the country means men and women are trapped in a cycle of homelessness and prison, with a tent or sleeping bag the only future on offer by authorities that are meant to be delivering justice. They stand little chance of getting off drugs or alcohol addiction or having their health needs cared for when they are sleeping rough. It seems extraordinary that as a nation we are prepared to spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, locking up people because they are annoying, and only a danger to themselves, yet we are unable to invest in the kind of support that would stop them being a nuisance and could help them into a safer and better life.

The system is broken. Both the secretary of state, David Gauke, and the prisons minister, Rory Stewart, have repeatedly said short prison sentences have no value and are even counter-productive. While the rhetoric and leadership is welcome, as yet, apart from warm words, there is no sign of legislation to sort this out. 

The recent report from the National Audit Office shows that the privatisation of community supervision has been an abject failure. The current plan proposed by the Government is to move the deckchairs round on the sinking ship by letting out new contracts to 10 companies instead of 21. 

We need to reinvest in a public service to deliver community justice and get rid of the profit motive from the justice system. We need to abolish short prison sentences that only do damage and cost the taxpayer a fortune. We need to invest in housing and services to prevent crime, protect victims and give people a chance to have a future we would want for ourselves and our children.

Frances Crook is CEO of the Howard League for Penal Reform

--oo00oo--

From CRC News Feb 2019

Consultation : Tackling Homelessness Together

MHCLG have launched their consultation on structures that support partnership working and accountability in homelessness. The consultation is a commitment within the Rough Sleeping Strategy and provides an opportunity to better understand what is currently happening in local areas, both where there is effective partnership working and where there is room for improvement.

The consultation also raises the possibility of introducing local Homelessness Reduction Boards. These Boards would bring together local delivery partners (such as those subject to the Duty to Refer, including Prisons and Probation Providers) in a forum through which they agree a strategic approach to reducing homelessness in their area, identify actions and interventions to drive systemic change, and hold one another to account for what they deliver.

We are aiming to submit a co-ordinated response across all probation services and would very much appreciate your views. We are circulating a template so please keep an eye out for this.

MHCLG will also be holding a number of workshops and roundtables so that they can continue to engage with local authorities and other stakeholders whilst the consultation is running and you are of course encouraged to engage with these and to submit individual responses directly should you wish to do so. 

Please send any questions or queries to CommunityBDU@justice.gov.uk
This consultation closes at 11:45pm on 16 May 2019.

--oo00oo--

From TTG Newsletter Edition 31 February 2019

Information from SWM CRC, regarding accommodation in the Birmingham Area 

Both the NPS and the local CRC are concerned about a significant issue which has arisen in the Birmingham area which could impact on public safety. There are many accommodation providers in this area who are keen to offer accommodation to CJS Service Users. Whilst some are of a good standard, some offer very poor accommodation with no support and there are a sizeable number that local CRC and NPS staff will not use due to serious concerns. There is also a tendency to place people with varying risks, vulnerabilities and complex needs in the same properties, creating additional risk issues. 

Unfortunately, without a national register or quality mark, colleagues across the country are not aware of these concerns and in some cases, have started to refer to Birmingham providers as a default for anyone who is homeless. We understand this includes Resettlement teams as well as Local Authorities and other agencies. 

There is very clear guidance in place via a Probation Instruction regarding transfer of people under supervision to a new CRC or NPS area. Unfortunately, it is often the case that this transfer protocol is not being followed and this means that both the NPS and the CRC have people turn up without any of the required checks and risk management arrangements put in place. This is something our Police and MAPPA colleagues are also very concerned about. 

Many of these placements break down very quickly creating additional challenges for everyone involved, not least the Service User who has no local support networks. Anecdotally we understand that in many cases, people make themselves homeless as they would rather live on the streets. 

Considering this situation, both the NPS and the CRC in the Birmingham area would like to appeal to all resettlement teams across the country and ask them to be very cautious about referring people from out of area to accommodation providers in Birmingham before checking out suitability. They can do this by contacting the Responsible Officer in the community who should ask for the address to be checked with the receiving service before they agree to the plan. Due to the concern we have about this situation, transfers that have taken place outside of agreed protocol and do not follow the PI will be very carefully considered and may not be accepted if sufficient notice has not been given and the accommodation is found to be unsuitable.

--oo00oo--

Meanwhile a reader has highlighted what's going on in that Tory strong-hold Kent:- 

"Could you post the below anonymously. 80 lost bed spaces for offenders in Kent will mean no move on accommodation from our one and only packed all the time AP. Homelessness will rocket in Kent for ex-offenders. AP will be bed blocked. Both articles relate to separate hostels that take ex-offenders/young people at risk and young offenders with no where to go. It also does not mention that Stonham hostels have another 40 bed spaces will also close. Potential for an 80 bed hostel in Sittingbourne to also close. This will happen on 31st March 2019 and will put the public massively at risk. In reality this means minimum 120 bed spaces. MOJ, NPS and CRC aware I hope they step in but this is not likely."

This from Kentonline:-

Kent's ex-offenders face homelessness due to a stand-off between Kent County Council and the Ministry of Justice

Ex-offenders face a life on the streets as a stand-off between two authorities continues over who should fund vital accommodation. Kent County Council has spent months arguing with the Ministry of Justice that former criminals should be the responsibility of the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company. Graham Gibbens, cabinet member for adult social care and public health, has now written an urgent letter to Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke pleading with him to help resolve the dispute and avoid a "very public failure".

Cllr Gibbens revealed KCC spends almost £630,000 each year on funding help for those who have served their time for violent crimes and sexual offences despite cuts to their own revenue. A change of contracts handed out by the council means many charities, such as Pathways to Independence, must tell their current clients they will no longer have a roof over their heads from March 31.

In a letter to MP David Gauke, Cllr Gibbens said: 

"I am writing to draw your urgent attention to around 80 offenders in Kent that face eviction from their accommodation on March 31 because neither the National Probation Service or the Community Rehabilitation Company will provide the necessary supervision and rehabilitation support. I know that the Police and Crime Commissioner is among those who are extremely concerned that offenders, including those on the sex offenders register and those having committed violent offences, will be leaving their accommodation, many midway through their support plans. To date the council has been funding and commission these offender-related services but cannot continue to do so. It is clearly the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Against the backdrop of significant reduction in revenue support which in Kent has reduced from £225 million to £9 million for the coming year. We are currently spending £629,368 per annum on the service.

Council Officers have over several months now tried to engage with the NPS and CRC so they can make appropriate arrangements to no avail. I suspect that you are not aware of this and what will be a very public failure by the Ministry of Justice to support this group of people with the increase in risk that they will reoffend and the implications for the wider justice system. You will appreciate that the failure of the NPS and CRC to provide the appropriate supervision and rehabilitation support that will enable them to stay in their accommodation is causing considerable alarm across our communities. I trust you will be able to intervene and reassure us accordingly."

Helen Campbell-Wroe, co-director of Pathways to Independence, helps provide accommodation through six hostels to 37 individuals who have a criminal history. She said: 

"This organisation has been providing ex-offenders with this service for more than 30 years. These people have done their time and tariff. This week I am serving a 28-day notice. We as a homeless charity are having to make people homeless which is awful. This is removing 40% of our funding in one fell swoop. The main issues are where the men are going to go and that these provisions have been removed entirely from Kent."

Last week it was revealed young adults, many vulnerable, were told they would no longer be able to live at Trinity Foyer, in Church Street, Maidstone, following a change of service provider. People aged 18-24 will have to find alternative accommodation or face being homeless on April 1.

Kent's Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Scott added: "I share Kent County Council’s concerns about the need to find a long-term solution to this potential problem and hope that you might be able to assist. Kent County Council’s strong leadership in taking on this gap in provision has been welcome. But with their resources being further stretched, and those of both Kent Police and my office not in a position to take up the funding gap, we need another approach."

The Ministry of Justice said the National Probation Service has to liaise with councils to secure accommodation for ex-offenders, even if it isn't a housing provider itself, and insists 230 more beds at bail hostels will be provided over the next two years.

A spokesperson added: “Kent County Council has made a decision not to invest in accommodation services to ex-offenders and we continue to work closely with them over options moving forwards. As part of the Government’s efforts to encourage long-term rehabilitation and ultimately reduce reoffending, we are working to ensure that everyone leaving prison has access to secure and stable accommodation. We’re investing £22 million in through-the-gate services to strengthen ties with key partners, including the third sector, local authorities and the police. We have also started a £6 million scheme that will help them stay off the streets and away from crime.”

A spokesman for Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company, said: “New laws in 2015 stripped probation services of their budget to provide supported accommodation to offenders, shifting the statutory responsibility to councils. We continue to supervise the people affected by this decision but have no remit or funding to provide housing. We will continue to work with the council to find a solution.”

General Secretary Election 22

In the absence of any engagement in discussion or debate, I think we must take yesterday's extraordinarily wide-ranging blog post from the General Secretary and emailed to all Napo members as evidence of some campaigning:-
 
OMiC - What’s the real story?

A number of members have been in touch to ask about progress on the OMiC Review, expressing concerns about safety and the impact on work in the community. We have recently put together a comprehensive update following on from our analysis in March, and the full document can be seen here.

OMiC - Napo's View

Napo has been in consultation with the OMiC project team for several months. Consultation, where the employer shares their plans and the trade unions have an opportunity to make comments, is not one of my favourite communication forums, largely because my experience of such exchanges shows that no matter what the issue is the unions often warn against the gaps in planning in advance of implementation. It’s also the case that some divisional management teams then present matters as having been “agreed with the trade unions”, thus compounding the confusion.

So far our consultation has primarily been with the National Design Team, which is responsible for issuing instructions to Divisional Implementation Boards (DIBs) which are comprised of both prison and NPS staff. All of the information we have up to now relates to public sector prisons and while we are aware that discussions are ongoing with contracted out prisons we have not received the detail on this.

Is it safe?

There are still real concerns for members about safety following some well-publicised issues about prisons. The OMiC plans lack sufficient detail, leading members to the belief that this key issue it is not being considered by the employer. Assurances are being offered about the presence of alarm bells and radios but not a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of the individual work that is required with clients. In addition to the general considerations there are some members from BAME backgrounds who are currently not placed in certain offices due to concerns about their physical and emotional wellbeing. The employer must be able to demonstrate that they can meet their duty of care to staff when placing them in a custodial environment. This duty of care extends to emotional wellbeing and protection from abuse and discrimination as well as physical wellbeing.

What POA members tell me

If Ministers had any doubts about the so called Prison Reform Revolution they could well spend some time listening to prison officer practitioners who have told me of their worries, (despite the propaganda being issued by HMPPS high command fuelled by some over optimistic reporting by their Governors).

First up is the lack of “feet on the landings” as described to me in terms of insufficient numbers of staff. For despite the almost weekly claims by Ministers and their MoJ apparatchiks, meeting a prison officer recruitment target counts for diddly if the attrition rate remains high (be it from natural wastage, staff who simply cannot cope, or new trainees seeing the realities of the environment and deciding this is not going to be a very good idea).

Protecting themselves comes next, and as Steve Gillan, POA General Secretary, confirms, protecting their families as its becoming normal for prison officers to be the subject of intimidation by way of threats implied or actual against their loved ones. Throw in the elements of preventing self-harm of clients, keeping a keen eye on gang violence, the effects of radicalisation and the huge influx of Spice and other drugs or illicit material and it’s hard to see exactly how the initial rehabilitation process expected of them is actually going to work.

The paper from our officer practitioners sets out some serious issues beyond this summary and I highly commend it as source material for discussion in your workplace. Do let me have any views or questions, which I will ensure get to the right quarter without revealing identities.

AP members concerns over rotas and outsourcing

I am just returning to London having visited Napo members from Approved Premises in Merseyside today along with Napo Vice-Chair Katie Lomas. We covered a range of issues including concerns about the impact of the shift rotas on individuals and how the recently outsourced DWNC outsourcing is working out, against the expectations of the National Project leads in NPS.

Yet again, and just like the recent visit that Katie and I made to Sheffield to share members concerns about VISOR, I was hugely impressed with our members depth knowledge and total commitment to their important work. It was also clear that the issues from members, that we went there to listen to, included appreciation by them of the pressures that their managers often find themselves in when trying to respond to the demands of the new E3 driven duty rotas, and the impact of this government’s decision to press on regardless with their ridiculous decision to outsource Double Waking Night Cover to Sodexo (and OCS) - who seem to be still struggling to deliver what we were told they would.

We have given advice about how members (and that’s members everywhere by the way) should ensure that they comply with HSE Directives around shift work and how we want them to be involved in finding and disseminating best practice across the region. As always Napo stands ready to work with Divisional management towards a smooth transition to the new rota arrangements - but it takes two to tango.

Ian Lawrence 

Pick of the Week 50

Interesting to read how many criminal justice/probation practitioners disagree with each other about the parole process ref-Worboys. Is that indicative of a broken system or a widespread lack of understanding/knowledge?

*****
That's a good point to make, as you'd expect those working in the system to have a shared understanding of procedures, protocols and responsibilities. The constant chopping and changing of processes doesn't help, nor the loss of experienced hands. It can look like the chaos of Keystone Cops – full of well-meaning energy, but full of cross purposes.

*****
In the meantime various 'Think Tanks' are positioning something that is being branded as Justice Devolution and under its banner there is the chance of another Probation revolution ranging from complete privatisation of Probation services to various hybrids under various local umbrellas. And, I am not hearing any Probation lead on these matters. Again, I ask who is speaking for Probation, who are our leaders and what are they saying? Come on people, wake up, others are deciding your destiny.

*****
It’s the right move. There must be evidence to support prosecutions and all involved must remember its ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way around. “Speaking as a cop, opposed to a citizen, I’m interested in crime. If it’s a long time ago, or it’s very trivial, or I’m not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I’m not going to spend a lot of resources on it. And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.”

*****
Unless it results in spousal assaults and/or sexual assault under a banner of misunderstandings. This woman is dangerous in her trivialisations and has obviously never been a victim. No wonder London crime rates are out of control when the governor tells her officers to dismiss sexualised behaviours. DV used to be termed 'a civil matter' until the law got wise. Shame on u Cressida.

*****
I agree with evidence based prosecution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but the timing of this policy is astounding. It was not taking the allegations of some of the victims (perhaps a presumption of misunderstanding or clumsy behaviour???) that has been the real root of the controversy surrounding the Warboys case. Perhaps it's an attempt of some sort to distance the Met from its failings with Worboys, but it's not the first controversial comments she's made in her short time in charge. Unfortunately, the devolution of justice issues to London will give her a far freer hand to impose her own ideology on the people of the capital. I think we'll be hearing from Cressida (and about her) on a pretty regular basis.

*****
Think what she says is eminently sensible and to attack her is hysterical. All she is saying is that she is only interested in behaviour that passes a criminal threshold, that actually breaches a law that's on the statue book. She rightly says treat all complainants with respect, listen to their complaint, investigate, gather evidence and then see if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. An allegation only becomes a fact if it's corroborated by evidence. What would you prefer? Trial based on allegations, or trial by evidence? Some Valentine cards may be unwelcome, but more likely the result of a misunderstanding than stalking or harassment.

*****
It's amazing how the demand for transparency with regard to the Parole Board is such an urgent priority, whilst all the failures of privatised probation services can be hidden away under the guise of corporate confidentiality. Transparency should be essential to all public services.

*****
Too much process and too many involved. The Worboys and the many other judicial challenges of Parole Board decision show that the Parole Board is not fit for making release decisions. Excepting whole life sentences, there should be fixed release dates for every prisoner. Recall periods should be in proportion to the sentence with a fixed release date, eg automatic release after a third of the remaining sentence period. Simple as.

*****
We have to accept that the Worboys decision was erroneous, but the Board generally do a good job. Some tinkering maybe around transparency and around allowing Boards to be chaired by lay people only under certain circumstances. That said, judges can make erratic chairs also. I know one who appears to sleep through most of proceedings. As much as I despise what has happened to legal aid, I fear that too much was used in paying so called 'independent psychologists' in this case.

*****
Fundamentally, the Parole Board must be doing a good job in evaluating risk if there is only a 1% chance of a parolee committing a further serious offence. The Worboy's case was more about the history of police failures to investigate at the outset and for Worboys to be charged by the CPS to adequately reflect the extent of his offending. Probation was also criticised over victim contact, but in fact all those who wanted to be kept informed were kept informed and those who did not wish victim contact had their wishes respected. The only mud thrown at probation related to some poorly drafted letters.

But as with other notorious cases – Harry Roberts with a parole tariff of 30 years spent 48 years in prison, released aged 78 – the reality is that the public would be quite content to see Worboys die in prison. It's not about future risks, it's about an enduring retribution. That's the irrationality at the heart of this case and no amount of tinkering with the Parole Board will prevent similar moral outrages in the future.

*****
The reconviction rates for serious offenders is low so Parole Board releases on the whole will always look like they’re “doing a good job”. There’s been many successful challenges of Parole Board decisions to not release. Worboys is the first challenge of a decision to release I think. It shows in too many instances Parole Board members are not suitably qualified to make release decisions. You really tell the difference when former judges, probation officers or psychologists are on the panel instead of the local butcher, baker or candlestick maker. An audit of paroled prisoners over the past 5 years would show there have been many, many dodgy Parole Board decisions, inc with illogical rationale and lack of information. This highly subjective process can be disbanded if every prisoner has a fixed released date. Not every country has a Parole Board.

*****
If you abolished indeterminate sentences, it would be compensated for by increasing the length of determinate sentences and we end up, like the US, imposing sentences of hundreds of years. Do you know of any country that does not make use of indeterminate sentences? How do they deal with heinous crimes?

*****
The IPP sentence was a move towards a ‘risk-based penal strategy’, with proportionality taking a back seat to public protection and future risk prediction. It is partly based on the US ‘3 strikes’ policy and it's heavy use of life sentences for a wide range of offences. So to the commenter above, we’re already following our friends across the pond. If the Parole Board system worked we wouldn’t have thousands of IPP’s languishing in prison many years over tariff. Indeterminate type sentences, quite legal under European law, could have fixed release dates and I question whether sentencing judges are happy knowing 15 years later flawed risk assessments will undermine the tariffs they set. 

There is not much point in parole and early release process when we have a prison system that can’t prepare people for release, a Parole Board that hasn’t the expertise and capacity to release, except serial rapists apparently, and a probation system that isn’t resourced to assist once released. We once abolished the death penalty, we ended the pre-90’s ‘one chance’ at parole, we did away with IPP sentences, and whole life sentences are now under scrutiny. There is an argument for an end to early parole and sentences without fixed release dates.

*****
Not every prisoner, probationer and hostel resident has psychological problems or personality disorders. The push to ‘screen’ all for PD without their knowledge is very concerning. So is the drive for PIPE prison wings and hostels which force individuals into psychological interventions to be released or be granted a hostel bed. How much is being spent on this PIPE rubbish? The only ones seeming to benefit are the psychologists!

*****
I absolutely agree re the psychologists benefiting. PD services seem to have created a whole new self-interested and self-absorbed industry. If you ask any MoJ/ NHS psychologist to assess someone for PD or anything else it seems they make it their purpose to find something to 'treat', despite their being very little treatment that service users will actually engage with.

*****
“PD” has become an industry unto itself. “PD” probation officers are running around generating importance for themselves. “PIPE” has become the buzzword for AP’s, which amounts to PSO’s having a group chat about once a week and an inexperienced psychologist telling them what they already know. 

Every offender on my caseload has been “screened in” (not be me) for “personality disorder”. None are aware they have been categorised for “PD” and are being discussed and assessed for psychological interventions (I’m not sure what is actually on offer). Most just need a job and a decent place to live! I get it, psychologist have to eat, but there’s probably more “PD” amongst the Probation managers!

*****
I agree with these sentiments. Probation has moved away from the social to the psychological, and people on our caseloads have been pathologised.

*****
10% of all Approved Premises and 50% of the female AP estate is provided by the Voluntary Sector a great team. Up until 45 years ago all Probation Hostels & Homes were provided and run by voluntary sector providers, some very small and local. It was not until legislation in the early 1970s that Probation Committees were first allowed to directly run Probation and Bail Hostels. Alongside the expansion of new Probation & Bail Hostels run by Probation Committees over the next 30 years, many previously voluntarily managed Probation Hostels were 'taken over' by the Probation Service and their assets absorbed in to the Crown Estate.

*****
This is good news but the demise of supported housing “hostels” and move-on accommodation is just as risky for Probation and the public. Two high risk of harm services have disappeared in my county with a loss of 24 bed spaces. Decent supported housing providers are being edged out of the market by profiteering companies, CRC writ large....

*****
Addiction defines a persons identity. It dictates what you do, and it's what you do that lays the fabrics and blocks that shape identity. The labels that are attached to an addict may compound things, but it's the addiction itself that creates the identity. Physical dependency is painful and traumatic, but short-lived, and the first necessary step to beating addiction. Staying clean is the complicated bit. A whole new identity is needed, a re-creation of the self. 

A three year programme as described above goes a very long way in addressing that need for a changed identity, it should be applauded, but there's also a concern for me. An addict can go to prison for three years, create a new identity for themselves, often a healthy one in the gym, stay off drugs the whole three years, but when that new-found identity is removed upon release, the familiar structures, the people gone that see you as your new identity defines you, many return to their old familiar self's and begin to use again. 

Spending three years in a community described above, helping to build that community, getting a sense of purpose and self worth, and doing so with a shared commonality with the others on the programme must certainly create that new identity. But it's only temporary and there must be a huge sense of loss when the time comes to move on. Those are dangers that I hope the programme can mitigate along the way, and I hope all that are lucky enough to be part of it really find it a life changing experience.

*****
Similar thoughts and I see value in the scheme as you do. For the majority though services need I think to focus on those issues in the local community which requires continuity of investment in community resources.

*****
No one saying anything about a connection between rising violent crime in London and the decimation of probation service as well as criminal breeding grounds that prisons have become? Cuts to public sector including the massive cuts to youth service and policing over past 10 years or so, social services and YOT's mean far less preventative work and opportunities to divert young people from crime. Social media and addiction of millions of young people to violent gaming is also playing a part. In addition reduction in time parents can spend with their children because they are having to work flat out to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not rocket science really!

*****
Now then, MoJ, look what happens when you remove a vast swathe of experienced skilled professionals from the Probation & Prison Services... you have to pay some numpty £millions to "create" an algorithm that assesses risk. Remember OASys? That was a fuck up too. Will you ever learn? No! I can't wait to read MoJ's PR about lowest prisoner numbers since the beginning of time, etc etc etc, with Young Rory singing the praises.

*****
It's my view that the third sector and the private sector are just two heads of the same dog. They structure their corporate arrangements very similar, and reward those at the top with obscene amounts of money and associated benefits. The third sector get government funding, EU funding, Lottery funding, have reduced business rates and tax and VAT breaks. They also benefit greatly from a huge amount of unpaid labour carried out by volunteers. Yet they're still prepared to involve themselves in anything that can bring in a few quid despite what reputational damage it attracts. The work programme being just one. The private sector get millions from government contracts, local councils, PCCs. They're allowed to limit their liabilities despite the vast amounts of money that they pay to shareholders, and can hide pretty much anything they want through a corporate confidentiality clause. 

It doesn't seem to matter that every inspection and report produced shows damning failures and poor practice, it's always a cry for more money. More, more, more! It's high time the government gave both sectors a good hard kick up the arse, and remind them that when they're using public funds they need to be honest brokers, and deliver the services that are being paid for in the way they need to be provided. TR is in its fourth year, the conversation should be about how to improve services and working conditions, and not about how the spoils should be shared out.

*****
Police cuts are of course going to have an impact on crime. But the rise of violent crime in London shouldn't be seen just as a criminal justice issue. It's the amalgamation and the coming together of years of shite social policies, and our neoliberal right wing Conservative government should harbour much of the blame. Much of the explanations been given relate to gangs and drugs. But if you have a drug policy that leaves drugs in the domain of criminal fraternities, then the relationship between gangs and drugs will always exist. But it's education and housing policy too. Leaving school with few or no qualifications from a class size of 40 and over pupils and living somewhere like Broadwater farm or Tower Hamlets is likely to leave the option of benefits or a zero hour contract at KFC.

Housing is a national issue, but a huge problem in London. But to raise funds many local councils are selling off social housing to the private sector. That's resulting in high concentrations of the poorest and socially deprived people being pushed into certain areas. Some call it social cleansing, but it certainly creates ghettos and large areas where social deprivation is the common defining factor. It's not drugs and gangs, just as its not drugs, drones and mobile phones that's caused the prison crisis. It's failed social and political policy. It's austerity and the decisions that are being taken to combat vicious cuts, and the government need to accept resolution will only come from being more socially oriented because the free market isn't going to fix it, the free market approach is part of the problem.

*****
T'ain't rocket science, is it? Poor social policy, closure of youth services, schools further and further away from home, bedroom tax breaks up communities, social care services decimated, family centres closing etc etc etc. Whaddaya know, an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime. What are the causes? Too much UK money going into the hands of a small number of individuals instead of into public services. And if I hear 'legal highs' blamed for anything else, I am going to scream.

*****
I used to work in Approved Premises before taking early retirement. Over the years (1998 - 2016) I attended many different training courses including OASys. It was on this course that I pointed out that at Approved Premises we occasionally accepted individuals on bail who had no previous convictions and were pleading 'not guilty' to their alleged offence. Despite this they were still subjected to an assessment process which labelled them as an 'offender'. The course tutor was unable to give a satisfactory answer. I always thought that Probation staff should be non judgement.

*****
I'm sure prison officers on the landings, already struggling with understaffing, violence, drugs, and concerned for their safety, will really appreciate trips back and forward to the office to input data in real time. Where does all this data end up?

*****
There isn't a lack of information, there's a lack of rehabilitation. Reform must be music in the ears of IT consultants. It's the old mantra of doing the same things all over again and expecting a different result. Bring in Cambridge Analytica - they know a thing or two about influencing people.

*****
A realistic quantity of quality time in contact with clientele is absolute bottom line for rehabilitation. Then by all means angst about definitions and achievement of "quality". Then fart-arse about with technology if you must. Sigh.

*****
I find it pretty amazing that Amber Rudd identifies drugs as being one of the main drivers for the creation of gangs and rising violent crime, and yet say nothing on how she intends to tackle that driver. Drugs are here, and they're not going to go away. Drugs create all kinds of problems and simply taking an ideological view that says "drugs are harmful so we won't tolerate them", is frankly to my mind idiotic and irresponsible. 

There will always be an illegal trade in drugs as there is with their legalised counterparts tobacco and alcohol, but the war on drugs is a war that doesn't need to be fought. Take them out of the hands of criminals, take the huge revenues they generate and the potential business opportunities available and do good things for society. Be pragmatic about drugs, accept they're a problem that's not going away and manage that problem in the best way possible.

*****
This is increasingly tiresome. Reams and reams of paper to tell us that what we all said would happen has happened and that the train crash we all predicted has taken place. Another enquiry taking months to tell us what we already know.

The problem with Probation is that the Prison management that took it over disrespected it, devalued it and mismanaged it. Carter put the wrong people in charge and they screwed it up completely. Nothing more to say. The solution is to extricate Probation from the grip of the Prison Service and allow it to operate independently. That will at least give us a chance. Whilst the Prison Service management continue to see command and control as a means of managing the Probation arm of the HMPPS and whilst those same people think that the private sector have anything to offer Probation, the whole ethos of the model will remain compromised and beyond repair. This was said BEFORE this shit storm started and they all know it.

*****
It's just a process of marking time until the contracts can be re-tendered. Halfway through now, keep talking about it and the seven years will soon pass. Maybe what should be being considered is the cost of probation contracts next time around. It's bound to be double if not more then the original arrangements or there won't be many willing to take them on.

*****
"An important aspect of self-legitimacy is the extent to which practitioners feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation (Bradford and Quinton 2014). In our view, the current situation means that the self-legitimacy of many practitioners is, at the very least, in some doubt. This in turn may lower morale and foster discontent with the quality services provided to those under supervision".

A few days ago, under pressure, I cancelled an appointment to visit a vulnerable, traumatised woman in prison, in order to get ahead of the "performance" priorities. I didn't seek authority for this decision, and when I mentioned it to my manager, it was nodded through. After an afternoon battering a keyboard, and hitting every performance target I had, I came home feeling... like a bit of me had died. Lord knows how my client feels, I don't, seeing as I wasn't there.

*****
This blog post more than most struck a chord with me. I did not start in the Probation profession to make my fortune, I had a zeal to make a tangible difference in all quarters that we were tasked with. I valued being a part of a cohesive profession that reached beyond itself and sought to connect with all who had similar ambitions. I was interested in creating a relationship with the people I worked with and engaging with the evidence of what worked. I valued the experience of those before me and learning from them. I valued professional supervision and on-going professional development. My skills after a decade and more of working with people is way beyond what I could have imagined when I started. When we talk about culture, it is hard to reconcile my ideas with making a profit and dividend payments to shareholders. Culture and values matter to me and those who we serve I believe.

*****
As a client of the probation service, this article has given me a very valuable insight into the difficulties faced by those who want to actually help people better their lives. It must be soul destroying to be under the influence of such regressive policies. Hats off to anyone who sticks at it. Surely the tide will have to turn soon.

*****
Attachment, responsibility, purpose, are the cornerstones for a reasonably stable life. For some, those things can't be achieved with other people. There can be many reasons why that might be so. Todays blog reminds of a book I once read many years ago (80s I think), called life after life. I've had a quick search this morning but can't find it, though there seems to be quite a few with the same title. It was really a collection of observational studies on half a dozen people that had served life sentences and how they coped (or didn't) upon release. One of the people in the book was a woman, who on release quickly found her life in chaos. She was recalled many times and the time spent on recall surpassed the time served on her original sentence. 

After serving 7years on her last recall, someone, perhaps her probation officer, suggested she might like to keep a pet, and she found herself with a dog. From that moment on her life changed, no more chaos, no more offending, and no more recalls. A sense of contentment or even happiness perhaps? Whatever it was, the animal had the most amazing and positive impact on the woman's life.

*****
If vetting is being linked to the issuing of laptops, then it would be legitimate to question if it's the integrity of the IT systems and software that's driving the need for vetting and not the user.

*****
I cannot think why. If it is, then as usual the staff are punished and made to jump through hoops for probation’s failures. Vetting or not, there will always be one person that leaves their laptop on the train! And Vetting doesn’t make IT more secure, not so long ago I recall reading about a number of police prosecuted for sharing PNC details. They were vetted! Imagine what your probation Vetting coordinators sitting in your offices will be doing with all your confidential information about you and your family?

*****
Personal view only, and it relates to purpose and identity, both of which I feel probation has struggled with in recent years. If probation is an organisation that provides assistance and support to help offenders steer their lives back onto the right track and help them maintain a stable existence (as probation once did) then vetting is not going to be an issue beyond the normal CRB check. However, once probation positions itself, and more and more sells itself, as an agency of public protection, then it becomes an 'agent of the state' and can have no real objection to being subjected to the same criteria that the state impose on other public protection agencies such as police. 

If you see probation as a service that assists offenders, helps with rehabilitation and are of course "constantly mindful" of public protection, I think you have reason to complain about the level of vetting. If however you view probation as a service of public protection that also provides some assistance where possible to the offenders you manage, then I think you have to accept the level of vetting other public protection agencies are subjected to.

*****
Canada is in the process of legalising illicit drugs, and the Republic of Ireland, a country where possession of a condom makes you a sinner, is considering legalisation of cannabis and allowing Dutch style coffee shops. Andrew Boff the very right wing Conservative member of the London Assembly has caused a huge row by calling for the legalisation of drugs in response to Amber Rudds violent crime strategy. Does the legalisation and regulation of drugs make a society more tolerant? No it doesn't. It makes it more responsible. How, in probation for example, can you help someone with a drug problem if disclosure of use is also the admission of an offence? 

Drugs are a blot on society, but only because they're management, supply, constitution and regulation are left in the control of criminal gangs. The USA's prohibition era is a perfect example of what happens when you ban supply but demand remains. There will always be a demand for drugs, and a big demand, so there will always be someone prepared to supply them. It's the basic economic model of supply and demand that our conservative government are so proud to boast about. Accept the problem and take ownership of it, otherwise it will just get worse. It's not being tolerant about drug use, it's being responsible about the impact drugs have on society.

*****
Not a vote winner the liberal government in Canada were deemed a few years ago to have no chance however standing on a platform including legalising cannabis soon changed that. For the record it is due to come into force in July and the person who has been in charge of implementation is the ex chief police officer of Toronto.

****
I don't see why an organised pilot and investigation into the pros and cons of drug legalisation could not be conducted in the UK. Select three areas defined as socially deprived, that already have a drug problem and high unemployment, allow local government in those areas to produce and sell cannabis in an organised way for 18 months, and then assess what impact it has had socially and economically on that area. I think the economic benefits would be considerable to areas like Blackpool, Grimsby or Sunderland, and the information gathered on drug related crime and unemployment would help inform national drug policy. If no benefits are realised, then just pull the plug.

*****
Any legalisation of drugs would have to remain under strict State control. Privatising or outsourcing any aspect of drug legalisation to corporations such as Sodexo, Interserve, G4s etc, would just be the same as handing back control to the criminals.

*****
I'm very disappointed with the response today's blog has attracted. Every probation officer in the country must have a case load of people that have drug issues. But no one has anything to say. It's very different if the blog is about pay and conditions, privatisation, or being let down by the unions. Everyone's shouting then. You're in it for the money, or you're in it for the cause. It's the safe place, or make a difference. Everyone makes there own mind up.

*****
There’s two comments above, perhaps from probation officers, and mine makes 3. I think it’s only nowadays PO’s are straight-laced-stick-up-the-backside types. Many of the older generation were the weed smoking type so I’m sure many have a view on this issue. In terms of the article at hand, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I support drug legalisation, taxation, etc. On the other, I do not believe it is necessarily the best way to resolve the drug problem. Legal or illegal, drugs are here to stay, but if we can’t have a proper debate about making alcohol illegal then how can we debate making drugs legal. 

I think the way forward is in pilot cities for cannabis legalisation in franchise “coffee shops” and a plant or two permitted for home growing. Other drugs may be available on prescription, such as cannabis oil, heroin, etc, but I don’t think we’ll be reverting back to opium dens any time soon. What I don’t support is this myth that legalising drugs will reduce violent crime because there are many other factors involved. This is political bullshit and not a basis for legalising drugs. Amber Rudd is talking out her backside, as is this silly Adam Smith Institute. For the record in some areas you’re more likely to be mugged buying a bottle of wine from your local offy where all the pissheads congregate than from your dealer who discreetly delivers to your house after hitting him up on Snapchat. Nobody is “going down dark alleyways”!!

*****
An appalling chapter in the history of the British Criminal Justice System and in UK politics. Disgraceful not only because it happened but because it took so many ignorant people to undermine the existing professional organisation. They were warned again and again but wanted their nose in the trough without any comprehension of what was at stake. Carter, Wheatley, Spurr and the King Rat himself, Failing Grayling - all complicit in the debacle and compromised by the obvious inadequacies of Prison Service management. Right wing thinking revealed again for what it is; concrete thinking, prejudicial and, fundamentally, stupid.

*****
In the light of the many reports, whether official, anecdotal or whistleblower, let us be totally & brutally clear what the TR project has led to. It's not - and was never - about the provision of an effective service; its not about the rehabilitation of those sent to work with probation staff by the Courts, either directly or via prison; and its not about having a skilled professional workforce. It is THIS: "All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ." Accountancy, NOT accountability.

*****
After surviving 3 years of MTCnovo I thought I was unshockable. Yesterday was the first day I have felt ashamed to be working as a probation officer. All offender managers have been instructed to inform their people managers (SPOs in MTCnovo parlance) how many service users report after 7pm and how often. Then we heard rumours of the bombshell - evening accredited groupwork programmes will not be offered by London CRC in the coming weeks/months.

For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable. If true, and my sources are reliable, this is truly a cynical cost-cutting exercise. Cynical because if they have any sense they must know that there will be "blow-back" from the Magistracy/Judiciary. They may be forced to back pedal, but in the interim they will save themselves a few more shekels to earn their annual bonuses.

Offender Managers in London CRC from the 1st May will no longer have face to face contact with our administrators when they move to a central admin hub in Bromley. We were not consulted about this move, it was yet another diktat. The fact that the powers-that-be are looking at how many service users report after 7pm strongly suggest they will close some offices at 7pm but maybe have regional offices for reporting after 7pm?

I thought the point of TR and the involvement of the private sector was to be "consumer" oriented, providing an improved flexible service compared with the dead hand of the inflexible public sector. Instead I am seeing the dismantling of a once proud service before my eyes like a slow motion car crash. God help us all.

Future of Independent Hostels

For as long as I can remember, there's been a 'mixed market' in the provision of hostel accommodation used by the probation service with some of the best being owned and operated by various voluntary or charitable organisations. Over the years the role of hostels, or Approved Premises as they are now called, has changed from a mixture of bail provision and welfare orientation to that of exclusively accommodating high risk offenders released on licence.

Since the TR split and the creation of the NPS, the inevitable civil service 'bureaucratisation' and command and control ethos has been putting in an appearance everywhere, not least with the new arrangements for security firms to staff APs overnight. However, I'm heartened to see from their recently-published annual report that the remaining independent hostels are remaining just that, independent:-     

       

NAPA: National Approved Premises Association 

Annual Report April 2017 to March 2018 

The past year has been a challenging, exciting and rewarding one for the National Approved Premises Association (NAPA) and Independent Approved Premises (IAPs). With the creation of the National Probation Service (NPS) from 1 June 2014, and the resulting centralised management of the Approved Premises (AP) estate, the role of NAPA in representing the whole of the AP sector had been put into question. Subsequently, and as a result of that change, the National Probation Service confirmed its intention to withdraw NAPA's annual grant as they would be taking over the functions for the NPS managed APs that NAPA had historically had a role in providing. These included 

• development of policy; 
• provision of an annual AP conference; 
• delivery of sector specific training;
• promotion of good practice; 
• fostering an understanding of the importance of the AP estate in its roles of managing and rehabilitating offenders who posed a high risk of harm to others. 

Consequently, NAPA made a decision to reform the organisation to focus specifically on supporting and promoting IAPs. This reformed NAPA position was welcomed by IAPs. The NAPA Executive was reconfigured so as to increase representation from IAPs, while, at the same time, ending that of 'Probation'. NAPA subsequently advertised and appointed a part time Director with a background in the IAP sector. 

With grant funding withdrawn, and IAPs struggling with limited budgets and not therefore in a position to offer financial support to NAPA, the Executive wrote to the Ministry of Justice requesting funding for 2017-2018. As a result, a decision was made to grant NAPA a further one year's (reduced) grant of £50K to enable NAPA to 

• facilitate the new contract negotiations between Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and IAPs; 
• support communications between HMPPS and IAPs; 
• provide training and development to IAPs and their staff. 

In view of the new role of NAPA, an annual workplan was drafted and agreed with IAPs. The workplan was designed to meet the needs of IAPs and obligations to HMPPS. It is with a certain amount of pride that we can say NAPA, with the support of the Executive Board, Director and all of our IAP colleagues, has been able to successfully adapt to the new environment and meet the challenges and expectations set. 

The following areas of work have been delivered over the last year by NAPA: 

1. Nine training events have been delivered to IAP staff during the year: topics included: 

• 'Dealing with Drugs and Alcohol’ 
• ’Suicide and Self Harm’ 
• 'Effective Engagement’, and 
• ‘Risk Assessment and Management’. We are currently developing a package ‘Working with Sex Offenders’ to be delivered during 2018-2019. 

2. Three IAP meetings have been organised and delivered during the year, bringing the sector together and sharing developments and good practice. 

3. In July 2017, NAPA convened an IAP gathering at Gladstone Library in North Wales which was very well attended and positively received. We were able to get a range of interesting speakers, including Deanna Francis, the AP central coordinator for HMPPS, Becky Hart and Mandy Horne from the contracts section of HMPPS, whose remits were to negotiate the new IAP contracts, and Joe Simpson from Her Majesty's Inspection of Probation, who headed up the 2017 thematic inspection entitled Probation Hostels' (Approved Premises) Contribution to Public Protection, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. NAPA had been interviewed by Joe Simpson earlier in the year as part of the AP inspection, and was provided with the opportunity to comment on current issues and concerns regarding the AP estate whilst highlighting the value of IAPs. This, along with positive visits having been conducted by the inspection team to two IAPs (St Johns and Adelaide House), resulted in the IAP sector being presented very favourably in the final Inspection Report, and described by her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacy, at the Clinks AGM as "a hidden gem". Following suggestions made at the Wales event, NAPA wrote to Lynda Marginson, then Deputy Director of Probation with responsibility for leading on AP, asking if NAPA could become a member of the National AP reference group, contributing to AP policy and practice and feeding back issues to IAPs. The request was accepted, and, during 2017-2018, NAPA attended four meetings. 

4. NAPA has facilitated contract negotiations between HMPPS and IAPs, which involved the holding of four meetings. It is with great delight to report that the negotiations have now concluded and IAPs are very happy with their individual settlements. We think that piece of work alone highlights the importance of NAPA as an umbrella organisation for the IAP sector, and the strength that comes from IAPs working together as a group. 

5. The NAPA website has been reviewed, and constantly updated, by Mike Short (a former NAPA Director) on a voluntary basis. Mike has also overseen our twitter account. 

6. NAPA has continued to sustain and develop its presence in the AP sector by corresponding and liaising with key people, attending relevant events and holding membership of relevant organisations in the wider sector, for example CLINKS. 

In conclusion, NAPA started the year with a real threat to its continued existence. That demanded a rethink of our purpose and whether we still had a meaningful role to play in the AP sector under the new arrangements. This led us to focus our attention and efforts towards the IAP group, which has wholeheartedly supported our new intentions and recognised our value to a section of the AP estate which is in the minority and has historically struggled to get its voice and value heard. 

It is with great pleasure we can report that this narrowing of our focus to represent IAPs only has enabled us to make a positive contribution to the eleven IAPs having secured signed three-year contracts with HMPPS for the provision of AP services to take effect from 1 April 2018, and under improved financial terms compared with the grant awarded in 2017-2018. We have also provided well attended AP specific training events throughout the country and highlighted the innovative work and good practice undertaken by IAPs, thus giving IAPs a higher profile within the Ministry of Justice and facilitating positive communications between IAPs and the wider HMPPS.  

Jill Dilks NAPA Chair

Peter Faill NAPA Director 

27 March 2018 

Trouble At Approved Premises

The following came in over night and left as comments on yesterday's blog. It's not signed or dated and if from a document, it may not be complete or the sections might not be in the right order. However, as submitted, it clearly sheds some light on the vexed issue of night waking-cover of Approved Premises (Probation Hostels in old money) and therefore in view of its importance, I've decided to publish it here for discussion and comment.

PRIVATISATION OF DOUBLE WAKING NIGHTS COVER (DWNC) IN PROBATION APPROVED PREMISES

Sodexo and OCS are FM contractors, but as part of their FM contracts to provide cleaning and catering in APs, they are also going to run DWNC in APs. UNISON has campaigned against this dangerous privatisation since it was first proposed three years ago. We believe that the MOJ breached EU procurement legislation in allowing residential services into a facilities management contract, but MOJ Ministers refused to answer our questions on the legal process. This issue has not gone away and we continue to campaign on this.

The NPS realised in January that neither Sodexo, nor OCS, was ready to take over the DWNC contract on the original ‘go live’ date of 22 January. As a result the start date was put back to 1 March, mainly to allow the 1-2-1 meetings to take place between the company and the NPS staff due to transfer to the private companies. The NPS has confirmed that the contract is going to start on 1 March even though Sodexo and OCS are not able to staff up all the APs on this date!!

The NPS is going to cover for them. This is obviously how privatisation works these days. UNISON has written to the Secretary of State for Justice and to Sonia Crozier to ask that the contracts are deferred again, on health and safety grounds. Our pleas have been ignored. NPS cannot say it was not warned.

ADVICE TO NPS STAFF TRANSFERRING TO SODEXO OR OCS

Sodexo and OCS have confirmed that they will recognise UNISON for the purposes of collective bargaining for TUPE transferees going forward. So UNISON will continue to look after your interests and represent you after you have transferred to Sodexo, or OCS. All of your contractual terms and conditions transfer unchanged to Sodexo, or OCS. Your pension remains unchanged. If you are in the Local Government Pension Scheme, this will continue.

There is no requirement for you to sign any new contract with Sodexo, or OCS. Do not sign any document you are given by Sodexo, or OCS, without first taking advice from UNISON. Your hours of work are protected. You cannot be required to work more hours than you do at present. You can agree to work additional hours/overtime, but this is your choice. If your contract states that you only work at one AP, you cannot be required to work at any other AP (unless you agree).

Sodexo and OCS cannot change any of your terms and conditions without your agreement, or the agreement of UNISON on your behalf. If you have any questions on what Sodexo or OCS ask you to do after the transfer, please speak to your local UNISON representative in the first instance.

REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL ASSISTANTS

UNISON asked for the start date for the privatised DWNC contracts to be deferred again post 1 March. This is because there is little evidence that the contractual requirements around the recruitment, shadow shifts and vetting of the privatised Residential Assistants, (who will work alongside a single NPS member of staff on every night shift), are anywhere close to being put in place in time for 1 March.  On the face of it, the Justice Secretary and HMPPS don’t care and are going ahead regardless. This is a major safe-guarding risk for AP staff, AP residents and communities, and we have warned both Ministers and Sonia Crozier about the dangers of going ahead unprepared. As we know, this is a government which cannot admit it has got things wrong.

The MOJ contract for the private DWNC requires that the following are put in place before any private residential assistant can work a shift alongside an NPS employee:

• All private Residential Assistants must be SIA licensed. 
• All personnel will have to display their SIA licence in a card holder on a lanyard at all times whilst on duty.
• The private Residential Assistant must be recruited only for work in APs (i.e. they cannot have been recruited for general security work for Sodexo/OCS anywhere else). 
• The private Residential Assistant must be interviewed for the job in the actual AP in which he/she is due to work. 
• The NPS AP manager in every AP has the right to attend each interview for private residential assistants, and will have the right to veto any appointment by Sodexo/OCS.
• As part of the appointment process the private Residential Assistant must provide an enhanced CRB check, proof of right to work in the UK, a verified employment history and satisfactory references.
• This will include a Security Guard Licence and Public Space Surveillance (operation of CCTV). 
• If at any time Key Holding is required, this SIA licence will also be required. 

All new private Residential Assistants will be required to work a minimum of three probationary ‘shadow’ shifts, alongside an experienced member of Sodexo/OCS staff, before undertaking his/her own shift. This means that for three night shifts, two Sodexo staff will have to work alongside the NPS DWNC member of staff to deliver the ‘shadow shifts’.

It is not acceptable for the NPS DWNC employee, or the AP Manager, to supervise the trainee private residential assistant on these ‘shadow shifts’, this must be done by an ‘experienced’ member of Sodexo or OCS staff. These training shifts will be at the expense of Sodexo/OCS.

NPS reserves the right to request the replacement of any private Residential Assistant should they fail to meet the standard required in the contract and the terms agreed as part of the interview process between the parties.

Approved Premises Managers will be responsible for arranging a site-specific building induction with each private Residential Assistant new to that AP which will include health and safety, use of panic alarms and action to alarm activations, fire and emergency evacuation procedure and other aspects of the local business.

It will be clear to most AP members that the above conditions are unlikely to be delivered in most APs in what is left of February. All of the above requirements are necessary for public protection and for the health and safety of AP residents and staff.

UNISON will not be prepared to accept any departure from these safety provisions. If you believe that any of these provisions is being flouted, please contact your UNISON representative immediately.

UNISON has written to each Divisional Head of Public Protection to ask about what plans are being put in place in each AP to deliver all of the above requirements prior to any private Residential Assistants being employed, and to seek the necessary reassurances regarding the health, safety and welfare of our AP members. At least one Head of Public Protection has written back to admit that the safeguards will not be in place on 1 March in his Division. This is on the record.

KEEP A LOG OF THINGS THAT GO WRONG as UNISON is putting a national appeal together, which we are entitled to do under the National Negotiating Council Job Evaluation Scheme.

However, there is a REAL DANGER that the NPS will ask Sodexo and OCS to back fill the vacant NPS Residential Worker posts!!!!!!!!, as there is the facility in the small print of the DWNC contract to ask the private companies to provide cover during the day. The thin end of the wedge if ever there was one! If you find Sodexo or OCS staff filling in on day shifts, please let UNISON know.

In all probability, HMPPS really wants to privatise the entire AP function and could be tempted to exploit its recruitment crisis in APs to bring this in through the back door. UNISON will fight this all the way. HMPPS to account on any problems that arise because the health, safety and wellbeing of our members, residents and communities is at risk and UNISON is not prepared to stand by and allow this. More information on where to send your logs will be sent out soon.

NPS STRUGGLES TO RECRUIT RESIDENTIAL WORKERS

UNISON has discovered that the NPS is struggling to recruit its own AP Residential Workers in at least two Divisions: South West and London. There are at least 20 AP residential worker vacancies in each Division. This is hardly surprising as NPS cut the salary for AP Residential Workers from a Band 3 to a Band 2 as part of its E3 cost cutting measures. Once applicants find out just how demanding a role the Residential Worker job is, they are less keen to join.

UNISON appealed against the down-banding in 2016, but NPS forced it through, not thinking ahead to the problems that this would lead to in recruitment. UNISON is therefore calling on NPS to review the salary of NPS Residential Workers again in 2018, and we will be asking for AP members’ assistance in this. UNISON asks all AP members to start keeping a written log of any problems and deficiencies which you witness from 1 March in the running of the privatised DWNC contracts. We will ask you to submit these logs to us on a monthly basis. It is really important that we hold the private companies to account!!!!!!

JOIN UNISON NOW. CALL FREE ON 0800 171 2193 OR VISIT JOIN UNISON.ORG

Next time you're supervising somebody's release from HMP and back into the community, perhaps after they have served a long sentence for what was a particularly nasty offence. There are recorded concerns and evidence of potential harm and you feel it would benefit all if there was a period of enhanced supervision during that early period of release......Well sorry to inform you but the AP system has turned to shit and soon will have a staffing model directly imported and inspired by such luminaries as G4S and their running of Brook House.

Hostel Worker Speaks Out

With NPS due to introduce significant changes to how Probation Hostels are run, this recent contribution gives an insight into a part of probation work not often discussed:- 

For at least the past ten years there has been pretty much constant change in Probation and in Approved Premises (AP). You could see the signs of privatisation coming and then with the introduction of Trusts, privatisation could not be hidden as an ultimate government goal. There was a reprieve with only the so called low/medium risk offenders moving across to be managed by private companies. I believe government wants all probation matters in the hands of the highest bidder. 

For the next stage I can see Approved Premises targeted to be taken over by private companies. For years I have had senior management say when questioned about APs and privatisation, that “no one would touch them as they could not make enough profit and that high risk offenders would not end up under their control”. I think we all know by now that it does not matter what is right and proper or safe, the privatisation onslaught will go on. 

The introduction of EE is another example of the privatisation preparation. Have any of you looked at the blurb as to the reasons to gain EE certification? One of them is that it is a measurable standard which can “Provide evidence of quality assurance to potential customers, commissioners and external stakeholders”. Although cynical of the current EE tick box process, my colleges and I have worked in an enabling environment way within the confines of an enhanced supervision regime since the day I joined. Why on earth would I be in Probation if I did not believe that? 

Next will probably be the TUPE of AP Residential workers along with the fabric and total control of the APs to private companies, justifying this by saying that PSOs and the AP Manager will still work within the AP but will be retained under NPS control. Residents within the AP will also still have NPS POs and after all the now band 2 Residential Workers will have no other function than to carry out a security role so why would they be retained by Probation. 

At one of the E3 web chat sessions, Sonia Crozier said about the AP residential worker “the posts will attract older people with a range of experience, who are interested in a second career”. I feel that we have all been let down and that (selfishly) all my effort in helping residents and actually reducing risk in the middle of the night and weekends when no “professional” was about will in the future be lost. I certainly will not be going the extra mile and work above my new role and pay grade.

'Hostel run by cleaners'. Not far wrong. The new rates of pay are pretty much cleaners wages. In fact we have not had a cleaner for months in our AP and it is down to staff and residents to keep the place together. If you look at the private companies who are currently recruiting for the night worker, the pay is at minimum wage, and for a 48 hr week. God help those who work nights in the AP that are being TUPE across to the private companies on the 22 January. Give it a year and their contract will no doubt be torn up. 

These companies are also competing with the MoJ for the Residential workers posts presumably to supply sessionals or to get them into APs and take a finding fee. They will probably be more successful in their campaign as the civil service seems incompetent at recruitment. Our and many other APs have held vacant posts for years. Currently there are posts being filled by surplus prison officers! Yes I said surplus. 

Should I touch on the Facilities Management contract? Well I would if I knew what was happening as at 22 January when the new contract is supposed to start. What is happening about outstanding jobs? Clothes dryer out of order for the last two months, blocked drains and no intercom etc etc etc. Have we got a new maintenance man coming in? No one seems to know.

AP staff have been targeted in many ways to reduce costs. The ban on overtime came in to our South West AP some years ago and shifts that needed covering were filled by sessionals. When there were no sessional staff, the shifts were open to full time staff but you had to complete the shift as a sessional. Yes you were doing the same work as what you were contracted to do, same desk, same building, same room, same residents...and pen, but you were paid at a lower banding/rate and this was classed as a second job. 

This was taken to grievance but was stopped by HR as it was not deemed a grievance. Although if you look on the My Services web site it has a comprehensive description of what is and what is not sessional work! Then there was a ban on taking bank holidays off as holiday. So if you were unfortunate to be on the rota to work all the bank holidays in any given year, you were told that you could not take even one day as holiday, fair? This went to grievance and was won by staff. 

They then introduced a complex way of giving you your bank holidays. You front loaded the holiday hrs onto your leave card and then were told that if you worked a bank holiday you had to convert the amount of hours worked on shift during that bank holiday to TOIL. This meant that if you wanted equivalent time off i.e. a weekend, then you had to use the TOIL which meant you were financially out of pocket, not equivalent time off. This was taken to grievance and won by staff. Staff were pressured to attend team meetings and not receive any compensation. After complaints, TOIL was offered but again the taking of TOIL means the loss of income. 

Would any other probation worker PSO, PO or SPO expect to be asked to come in on an evening or weekend and accept no payment or TOIL for their time? I am talking about weekends and nights not extra time at the front or back end of a day. Management seemed to think that if you did not work during the week then it was ok to ask an AP worker to attend supervision during their working hours and that staff were being difficult if they said no.

I would like to finish on a positive. I have enjoyed my job and hopefully no matter what they throw at us I hope to retain some of the work ethic I see in my colleagues.

--oo00oo--

The following tweeted yesterday by Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence:-

"Breaking News... Transfer of Approved Premises Waking Night cover now to take place in March following union pressure. More news to follow."

SFOs = Renationalise Probation

Today three unions call for probation to be renationalised as yet more Serious Further Offences come to light. Splitting the service in two was always going to be hugely risky. This is from Left Foot Forward:-

Failing privatised probation services must be nationalised, say unions

Firms are being bailed out with public money amid a rise in serious offenses under privatisation.

Unions have written to the government today to demand failing privatised probation services are brought back into public hands – after new figures show a rise in serious offenses under the outsourced bodies. In a letter to justice secretary David Lidington, UNISON, the National Association of Probation Officers and the GMB argue the outsourced probation services are not working, with the public having to bail out many of the failing firms.

It comes as the government continues to sit on a long-awaited review of the so-called community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) which now run most of the sector. Details of the public money spent on spent keeping CRCs solvent have still not been released. 21 of these CRCs were set up and awarded seven-year contracts worth a total of £3.7bn in 2014. Yet nearly all have reported they are already making a loss, leading many of them to be handed fresh handouts from the taxpayer.

New figures also show a rise in the number of people who commit serious crimes while already serving sentences outside prison, since the probation service ‘reforms’ were introduced three years ago. 517 reviews were triggered in England and Wales in 2016/17 after charges for murder and other offences including rape – a rise of nearly 100 since pre-privatisation 2013/14, according to the data released this month by justice minister Sam Gyimah.

Now the government are planning to outsource contracts for night-time supervision in probation hostels, which house some of the most dangerous people to be released from prison before they are allowed to live in the community. The public could be put at risk because private companies will employ poorly-trained staff and pay them low wages, say the three unions.

UNISON national officer Ben Priestley said:

“People are potentially being put at risk because private firms have not delivered on keeping the public safe. The justice secretary has admitted that privatisation isn’t working yet wants to continue this experiment through night-time supervision. What’s needed instead are properly trained public sector employees. That’s why the government must take back control of failing private probation services.”

Last month the Chief Inspector of Probation issued a damning report into Suffolk’s privatised probation service, run by French catering and privatisation firm Sodexo – in which she described the service as ‘nowhere near good enough’. Sodexo secured a seven year contract with zero competition, reported Private Eye.

NAPO general secretary Ian Lawrence added:

“Ministers were warned that privatisation would damage an award-winning service, and standards would deteriorate. This is now becoming reality and having a negative impact on public safety, staff well-being and the ability of people who have committed offences to turn their lives around. The government must now take urgent action, and these reforms should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.”

The move to outsource probation hostel security comes despite the government specifically establishing a government-run body to deal with high-risk offenders when former Justice Minister Chris Grayling privatised probation services in 2014 – presumably because private companies couldn’t be trusted to deal with them.

--oo00oo--

BBC website today:-

Women attacked in Kidderminster by rapist on licence

A convicted rapist attacked two women a month after being released from prison on licence. Ashley Shuck, 24, from Worcester, sexually assaulted the women, aged 28 and 77, in Kidderminster in June. His 77-year-old victim was forced to drive around for two hours after she was raped, police said. Shuck had been released on licence a month earlier after being convicted in 2012 of raping an 18-year-old woman. He was jailed for life and will serve a minimum of 10 and a half years.

A serious case review will be carried out and the case has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. West Mercia Police said two women reported the attacks on 18 June. The force said Shuck's younger victim was sexually assaulted early that morning at her friend's home in the Worcestershire town. The other woman was raped at her home later that morning and forced to drive around the county afterwards.

Police said Shuck was first convicted of rape at Worcester Crown Court on 19 March 2012 and sentenced to eight years in prison on 19 September 2012. Assistant Chief Constable Richard Moore, of West Mercia Police, said:

 "Following his release from prison in May 2017, Ashley Shuck was managed through multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). The Strategic Management Board for West Mercia MAPPA has now commissioned a mandatory multi-agency serious case review to examine the offender management of Ashley Shuck." 

Shuck, of Ombersley Road, was sentenced at Worcester Crown Court on Monday. He had previously admitted two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault and one count of kidnap. He will be placed on the sex offenders register for life and has been made the subject of a lifetime Sexual Harm Prevention Order.