Guest Blog 100

Probation Past but not Forgotten 

Just to be upfront with my readers this blog is focussed upon the use and development of Business Processes and Computer Systems within the National Probation Service (NPS) and then a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) being based upon my working experiences from 2006 to 2016. I am not a qualified Probation Officer. But I have a long career prior to joining probation in the private sector in Business and Computer systems. First employed in 2006 within the NPS West Midland Trust, Learning and Development Unit, Selly Oak, Birmingham as a Business Support Training Officer. 

Then I jointly supported the Learning and Development Unit and the Central Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU) initially supporting the System Testing and Implementation of Delius. Then in 2013 I was appointed as a Transformation Administration Manager within the Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU). I was then transferred to a CRC in 2014 before being made redundant in 2016. 

I cannot blog on the current (2024) HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) since I have been outside the Probation Service since 2016. So essentially it is more of a historical record but the effort to write it is based upon me wanting to communicate on “a lessons learnt” basis that may influence and benefit those currently working within the HMPPS. It is also an historical record of the events I experienced at the NPS and then CRC.

So why start blogging on Probation after 8 years outside of the service?

When I was at Probation, like many others, I followed Jim Brown daily since he was telling the “truth” particularly through the blitzkrieg period of change. But over the last 8 years I have only on rare occasions popped onto his blog to see how things are going at Probation, now the HMPPS. So having done one of my normal LinkedIn posts that covered a bit about Probation, I was surprised to get a personal message to call him. Which I did and we had a brief chat on Monday 23/09/24. He asked me if I had any more relevant contributions. I explained that obviously all my experiences are now from the 2006 – 2016 period so lacking relevance to HMPPS in 2024. 

Then it occurred to both of us during our conversation that those experiences might help those trying to sort out HMPPS today. I explained that particularly my NPS experience, not my CRC experience, was a very positive part of my career, particularly in respect of the people with whom I worked. Whilst my experience of the Business Systems and Computer Systems was just the opposite. But I had started in 2006 with the best intentions of improving both of these aspects and to be perfectly frank, after 10 years of hard motivated work, I achieved nothing. I don’t know another part of my career where it was so difficult to influence and effect change to Business Processes and Computer Systems. So if any contribution on here could help those now within the HMPPS family achieve these changes now, I wouldn’t feel my 10 years was such a waste of effort. My commitment can only be a positive and constructive one since I don’t do negative or political.

So I walked out of the Probation Offices in Central Birmingham for the last time on the 3rd July 2016, having been disposed of by Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP), a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) that was now trying to run the Probation Private Services for Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Staffordshire and the West Midlands. I was deemed redundant and my services were no longer required. Not the best of timing for them or me. In their case with me having a long career prior to Probation in Business Systems design and implementation in the Private Sector, they needed me and others like me more than ever with the chaos now being unleashed. Instead they were dependant on the ”all knowing” but “knowing nothing” highly paid consultant swarms now descended on Probation. Many just out of university but deemed chargeable to the Ministry of Justice no doubt with a cashback into the RRP coffers. But it also has to be acknowledged that there were some very smart experienced consultants with some clearly wanting to support our side of how we wanted change implemented. That is carefully and progressively.

These consultants actually listened and didn’t just feedback but actively joined us in trying to get some constructive steer on the changes themselves and the rate of change being planned. They also took some risks within their own Consultant Management Companies, who had won the lucrative change management contracts from the MoJ, in supporting our side of the story. But unfortunately they weren’t listened to either, so blitzkrieg commenced at pace.

The tide of change from Government and the MoJ was too strong and too fast for all of us to contain or control it. They had enforced a blitzkrieg approach to changing Probation. Probation had established its fundamental principles over 100 years and these were already being improved upon as a result of the Carter Report, by a Probation Officer, and its implementation through the 2006 to 2010 period. Things were improving in a Japanese style of incremental improvements like the national use of a new Offender Management System called Delius and access to the Police ViSOR System. 

Although OASys was in most need of re-engineering it was not on the to do list. Probation had never faced a blitzkrieg Government attack before and it was very ill prepared to counter it. Other Government Departments, particularly our own HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) never came in with any support since whilst we were under attack they could standby, avoiding being attacked themselves. Needless to say HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was also being attacked under austerity principles with many local court closures impacting the application of good and tried local justice principles. The blitzkrieg approach funded by the Government threw money at the private sector to establish the principles of probation moving to the private sector in the form of the CRC’s. So I was transferred to a CRC.

We CRC staff, being ex- NPS staff, were now considered only eligible to be treated with a sort of private sector employment status. Essentially exiled out into the wilderness. With no doubt their planned lowering of pay rates to reflect our drop in both economic and social status. Yes I was now employed by a new lowly entity in the Government MoJ come Probation hierarchy, which was soon to be dropped a peg down on bloc below the unit with the lock and keys the Prisons which were to upstage Probation in the political hierarchy creating the illogical HMPPS.

NPS Induction Training in West Midland taught the hierarchy where the Courts were the very top, supported by the Probation Service with the Prisons as a service locking them up as punishment and to protect the public. Whilst the Carter Report rightly recommended the Prison’s rightly focussed on rehabilitation whilst in a custody setting. Training Prison Officers on Rehabilitation Practices, we were always amazed at how enthusiastic they were about acquiring these new skills and looking forward to applying them within their prison settings. Just the locking up although critical was very boring and contributing to prisoners futures much more rewarding. Probation was a highly respected Court Service which has been that way almost from the beginnings of Probation as detailed in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Totally integrated into the Court System allowing them to administer justice and protect the public. Probation was a service geographically distributed in the community operating in support of the Courts as a Court Service.

So that was it. Probation was over for me. I had tried very hard with many other like minded and motivated people to get the Probation Business Processes into a better state. We even organised a group of Trusts covering London, Devon and Cornwall, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, South Yorkshire and the West Midland to establish a common National Business Standards System on the TIBCO Nimbus business mapping product we all had installed and were using daily. Although we tried we got little support from the MoJ in terms of this initiative which was in fact seeded from the bottom of the organisation upwards. Never the right way to get something established. 

The West Midlands had already led on Business Change with its Modelling District Projects but it was only when we combined with the Staffordshire Trust that we gained access to their more advanced use of TIBCO Nimbus which we quickly adopted. Obviously other Trusts had quite independently taken to using TIBCO Nimbus no doubt being targeted by the TIBCO sales force. Whilst we had some MoJ meetings in London where they were impressed by our TIBCO Nimbus efforts, it was never formally adopted and was not included in any MoJ Directives to the Trusts.

I suspect many in Probation may not even be aware of this TIBCO Nimbus initiative taking place in some Trusts. Even within the TIBCO Nimbus active Trusts their own staff were not always aware of its purpose and presence. Not being a subject included in any National Probation Communications for many using it was not seen as a priority. There was certainly no national sign off of the TIBCO Nimbus Business Processes thereby not making them the de facto way of working for everybody. It was a mess. Had it been better established it may have helped us better deflect some of the blitzkrieg attack on our undocumented working practices. We really had nothing concrete or national to defend ourselves with in respect of standardised business processes. With no defences it was inevitable we would lose the battle.

But the one last stand I took supported by my Business Process Design colleague along with surprisingly an RRP Consultant, was to try and convince the Reducing Reoffending Partnership Board to use our Business Processes already mapped in TIBCO Nimbus as a basis for building the new business models brought about by the creation of the CRC’s It made so much sense. This proposal to the RRP CRC Board was dated the 9th July 2015 and I still have a copy I can share on here in the future. I also initiated a brilliant commercial negotiation with TIBCO to virtually have free use of Nimbus for a period to get it established. What was there not to like. But the proposal got rejected by the RRP CRC Board.

The TIBCO Nimbus Servers were torn out of their server racking and sent for scrap. Somewhere I have photos of them lying on the scrap pile representing many years of process design and data entry work. Then beyond belief they started a Business Process Mapping Project to go around collecting all the information again from relevant Probation staff groups and then re mapping it all in Microsoft Visio a product considered very unfriendly for everyday business users being more aligned with the needs of IT Staff.

So to the end of my story at Probation with the CRC RRP making me redundant on 3rd July 2016. Exactly 1 year after our TIBCO Nimbus proposal to the RRP CRC Board had been rejected. My work Nimbus colleague was kept on to continue but without having TIBCO Nimbus and having to return to using Microsoft Visio the objective of installing business systems onto all employee desk tops where they would be used daily by the service was now impossible. My Nimbus work colleague soon left since Business Process Planning was not a priority in the midst of all the firefighting now required to maintain some sort of Probation Service.

Now just to complete the conversation I had with Jim Brown. He said write me a “taster” and I will see if I want to link to it. This is that taster. But included in it is a early High Level Flowchart for use in the West Midlands that I produced way back to illustrate the importance of having a holistic view of all the Business Systems.

The truth is I have many other resources that are now dated like all the original TIBCO Nimbus Process Maps extracted in a PowerPoint format. Along with various other methodologies and techniques we developed and used like iPresentation and iProcess along with Work Instructions. In fact lots of my historic bits and pieces accumulated over 10 years at Probation that may possibly interest probation staff historically or maybe in some cases prove worth reusing today in the HMPPS.

But to be effective though what Probation needs is what my last American Company had which was what they called its own university (Pollak University). In fact it wasn’t a University in our sense of the use of the word meaning a verified academic learning institution. But it was where all product knowledge, manufacturing knowledge, research knowledge, business processes knowledge and computer systems knowledge was documented, co-ordinated, researched and communicated. It had dedicated librarianship, research and training capabilities. Research papers could be submitted and reviewed and so forth. Essentially a “one stop” place for all knowledge and processes within the business entity. So they called it a University. 

Now if this blog got to the MoJ and it triggered them to setup up a “Probation University” that would justify all the 10 years I spent and enjoyed at the National Probation Service. The first thing that needs researching, documenting and standardising and communicating is all the Business Processes. This is about adopting an ideology that Probation can have a common set of Business Processes applied right across all geographical and business areas. To make it happen it needs a champion in this ideology and that champion being in a position at the top with the powers to implement it. There is an argument that computer systems in the future will have built into them workflow principles and this has been accelerated by the AI developments. But until these systems are developed and made available it is vital that all Business Processes are standardised and documented in a user friendly way.

Some may consider the Probation Institute established in 2014 could act like the Probation University I have proposed. My view is it should definitely form part of the Probation University. But a concern might be that once it became MoJ financed would it as a "membership" financed organisation have its independence compromised. I don't see it this way. The membership of the Probation Institute are working at the front line of the Service and their constructive contribution is vital and should be within the proposed Probation University framework. 

But the scope of the Probation University is much larger than that of the Probation Institute. The Probation University defines and drives the operational activities of Probation both staff and systems. I appreciate it's a much used cliche to suggest we should all operate like Amazon and some strong views exist suggesting you cannot apply their methods of effectively shipping goods to essentially the practice of a social science. All I would just say is let an Amazon IT system designer with their keystroke counting audit techniques and workflow engineering skills redesign OASys. The time we waste on OASys could then be spent with our clients (Do we call them clients or offenders these days?) doing our social science best practices more effectively.

Within the Probation University the study of Social and Behavioural Sciences should far exceed the focus on Business and Computer Systems. They are our prime activity. It is what we do working with our clients. So Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology along with an endless list of other subjects that need to be included within the Probation University framework. If this blog post achieved the setting up of a Probation University whilst I am now outside the organisation it would be amazing since I could never achieve it whilst working within the organisation.

Now to share with you a High Level Offender Management Vertical Workflow Map which is now 12 years old covering Offender Management Process Flows (circa 2012) within the Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust. I am sure this could be edited in less than a few hours to accurately represent current HMPPS Probation Business Processes since I suspect much of the supporting documentation (paperwork) has remained unchanged. Although the computer record updating may have changed. I just don't know. Maybe it is a starting point to commencing Business Workflow and Process Mapping. Certainly Indeterminate Prison Sentencing has changed with the removal of IPP's by coincidence in 2012 (As usual just after the map was drawn !!!!) although their removal was from memory not retrospective. If it generates any interest I have another High Level Horizontal Workflow Map I can share showing the relationships between all those parties linked to Probation once again somewhat dated but easily updated. 

Enjoy, 

Banno

Link to High Level Map below.

Once launched use the normal "pinch-to-zoom" gesture to zoom in and zoom out of the PDF to read the small print.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pw4dIYts48SVHQxhE1iKxl5r6eil4RJE/view?usp=sharing

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.

Justice Committee Hears From CRCs 2

Here we have the final part of the oral evidence from the CRCs:-

Q45 Dr Mullan: We heard from the probation inspectorate that two of the providers are rated as good. You have all talked about some of the positive work that you think you do. We are all keen to make sure that is carried across in some way. 

There are two things. The dynamic framework obviously sets out, just for resettlement services, that other people will be involved in providing services out of house. If the dynamic framework could be adjusted, and if there was an ability for providers like yourselves, on a non-geographical basis or even a smaller basis, to get involved in providing some of the intervention services that, for example, at the moment are going to go in-house, would that work for you? Would you be able to respond to that market approach, where you did not have a whole contract but could come in and help deliver some of the services that you may have a good track record of delivering? 

Trevor Shortt: There are some really good principles underpinning the dynamic framework. It gives local commissioners real opportunity to commission services that make sense in their patch. The wash-out on it, if you like, is that the procurement of those services is now under way, but not all of them will be in place for 26 June next year. The question we need to deal with is what happens to services that are not part of the day one services, and what happens to the organisations that are currently providing some of those, and indeed the people who were involved in some often small and bespoke organisations and local services that we need to look after through the transition. 

Q46 Dr Mullan: Let me pick up on that answer. I get from that that you perhaps think there is a wider scope. Our current interpretation is that the dynamic framework just allows for the resettlement services and not the broader interventions that you might undertake with a probationer. Do you have a different interpretation? 

Trevor Shortt: I think we see it as being both. From a Sodexo perspective, we are interested in what we might be able to provide in the dynamic framework. To answer your original question, we are looking at each of the call-offs in their own right, but it is not something we are seeing as a substitute for what might have been under the PDP. 

Suki Binning: The employee owners of Seetec are very much interested in continuing to provide services in this space, including the dynamic framework. Some of the concerns we have are that it appears that some services that we currently provide will fall between the cracks. For instance, at the moment we do not quite know where restorative justice sits. We have dedicated teams that provide restorative justice and mentoring services. From some of the initiatives that we have seen up and down the country with other CRCs it is not really clear where they sit. That is our concern. Certainly, the employee owners are interested to continue contributing in this field. 

David Hood: The first question was on whether we would interested in providing services that at the moment are going to be taken in-house— the intervention type services. Of course, we would be interested in exploring that. We have some very capable people in our organisation. That was part of our PDP approach, so the answer to that is yes, we would be interested in exploring that. 

It is important to echo Suki’s point, because it applies to us as we look at the current dynamic framework and what appears to be in scope for day one. There are services, including in London in particular, that are not currently in scope for day one of the dynamic framework. A question arises as to staff, but also what about the needs of service users currently receiving those services? 

Adam Hart: I would echo but not repeat the points that have been made. My understanding of the day one services is that they include employment, training, education, personal wellbeing and accommodation types of services. There is a reasonable spectrum with, hopefully, more to follow. We think we have a great deal to offer in all those spaces. That is of interest to us, but, as Suki articulated, there is a potential gap that we need to make sure is filled. Suki cited restorative justice. I would cite mentoring, specifically peer mentoring. 

Within my organisation—others do something similar—I now have over 40, either voluntary or employee, ex-service users. They have been on our case load and have shown a desire to come and work with us, and we have provided employment for those individuals. It is important because they are the ones with real lived experience. We place them in a peer mentoring programme. At the moment, we cannot position that anywhere in the framework or, indeed, potentially in the services that are going to the NPS. The dynamic framework has some very good aspects, but it would be even healthier if it could be widened a little bit further. 

Q47 Dr Mullan: Would you agree with me that there is perhaps a bit of tension? You currently have people working in this field and you currently hold those contracts. Then there will be a switchover, but probably ideally what would happen is that the people you are working with transition over time to a different provider. You are holding people that we might want to recruit directly in-house to deliver some of the stuff that you are doing at the moment. 

Trevor Shortt: There is no doubt that we are facing a challenge as we head into the end of these contracts for that reason. A number of our staff sit very comfortably in the new arrangements in the national service, but that does not capture everyone, particularly staff who fall into the dynamic framework arrangements where those services are not competed and settled this side of June. They face some uncertainty, and there may be disruption to service that we will need to manage as part of that. 

David Hood: Because it is an important point, I echo Trevor’s point. We need to resolve the position quickly in relation to those staff. Some of those staff are some of the best staff in the service, and the most capable. Losing them elsewhere would be a tragedy and not in anyone’s interest, where they decide that the uncertainty means they need to look elsewhere. 

Q48 Dr Mullan: I will move on and ask Suki in particular about how the changes to the model affect Wales. Obviously, the arrangements are different in Wales. 

Suki Binning: The Wales transfer of case management took place in December. The transition went quite smoothly. We had reservations that maybe post the transfer we might see a drop in referrals for programmes because we would have two organisations, but I am really pleased that that has not happened. The number of referrals for the behaviour change programmes has continued. 

We have a group of staff who were really motivated to take on the unpaid programmes work and be solely dedicated to do that, and they are quite disappointed now. In terms of the transfer, we were transferring case management which, on the whole, nationally is quite similar. There are only so many ways you can do case management of probation. Where we have differences is in how across the CRCs we deliver our unpaid work programmes, and we are transferring a very different thing. That is where it gets more complicated. 

Q49 Dr Mullan: Can I ask all of you about the impact of Covid-19 on the delivery of services? 

Adam Hart: Obviously, there is no getting away from the fact that there has been substantial impact on the service. I repeat a little bit of what I said earlier about the way people have managed to approach that. Organisations have stood up their best available people, plans and technology capabilities to rise to the challenge. What we are seeing now is the real impact of local lockdowns and the need to be incredibly flexible. We are literally monitoring the situation daily, if not hourly, to respond to that position. 

It is having a huge bearing on the way we operate. It is also of course increasing backlogs where they exist in the system. They exist in many places, so the pandemic is obviously a very long-lasting situation for all of us in the system. We are very mindful about how we hand that system back to the National Probation Service. We want it to be in the best possible space it can be. 

It is right to say that there have been some elements of the pandemic that have forced the system, and us as organisations, to react and respond slightly differently. There have been some benefits. I would cite the ability to work flexibly and remotely. Our capability has increased as a response to the pandemic. Also, some of what we do and how we do it has fundamentally shifted. It would be good if we did not lose that good-quality change, and if we embedded it in the new system. Overall, it is obviously a very significant and challenging time across the piece for us. 

Q50 Chair: Does anybody disagree or have anything to add? 

David Hood: I entirely agree. Adam has just made a good summary from our perspective. It would be remiss not to make the very clear and important point that heroic through this process have been the staff. Our staff have been quite remarkable in their adaptability, resilience and willingness to work together and with the Department to do something that is very different from what they are normally used to doing. I think we would all pay tribute to the staff within our organisations for that. They have been exceptional. 

Chair: Fair point. 

Q51 Rob Butler: I would like to talk, if I may, about some of the specifics of transition. I will pick up where Mr Hood left off in paying tribute to your staff. In my previous role as non-executive director of HMPPS, I met staff from all your companies, and was always incredibly impressed by their dedication, their commitment and their absolute determination to do the best by the service users. It is important that we do not lose sight of that when having discussions about the bigger picture. I am sure that view is shared by other members of the Committee. We would probably all wish you to pass on our thanks to them for working through an incredibly difficult period, not just because of Covid but because of the added uncertainty that the transition is creating for them, none of which has been brought on by themselves.

With that in mind, I am clear that they are working incredibly hard to try to hand over as effectively as they can. Some are going to move into the new unified model by next June. I would like to hear a little bit from each of you about how you see the transition going. If I may, I would like to start with Mr Hood, simply because I was in one of your hubs—the Bicester hub—a couple of weeks ago. It happens to deal with offenders from my constituency. I know there are particular concerns there about the case management system. Could you kick us off by talking through where you see us with transition, please? 

David Hood: Transition is incredibly difficult. If I can go back again to the points that Justin Russell made, he made the point that as with any transition of this dimension there are many moving parts. It is exceptionally complex. You are trying to take 21 CRCs, many of which have different operating models, and combine them with NPS regions. You are trying to deliver a dynamic framework and do all of it in the context of Covid, and within a period of less than a year. That is incredibly hard. 

The approach the Department is trying to take, as I understand it, is to do what they refer to as lift and shift and, rightly, try to deliver a new model with as little disruption on day one as possible. The reality is that, when you look at our CRCs, they are not delivering a lift and shift. The case management system is a good example, because it is a fundamental tool that our staff use. It is very different from what the NPS uses. It took us well over six months just to roll it out and train staff on that new tool. It sits within a suite of other technologies that support operations and are delivering operations in the context of reduced staff numbers over the years. Combining all those things together, we are presented with a very difficult proposition to get all of it working in June 2021. 

Q52 Rob Butler: Do you think there is any risk to public safety as a result of those difficulties? 

David Hood: In June 2021, if we have not effectively transitioned and we end up with something a bit chaotic, inevitably there must be some risk to public safety. The goal and the aim of all of us must be to make sure that that is not the case. That is certainly our goal. I acknowledge that it is also the Department’s goal, but they have really taken on a difficult task. 

Q53 Rob Butler: Do you feel that you have sufficient input to the Department to flag warnings when they are appropriate, and that they are being heeded? 

David Hood: Initially, when it started off, I think we were probably kept a little bit at arm’s length in terms of the planning. That has improved. We have a reasonable amount of input at the centre, and that seems to be increasing—necessarily so. At regional level, we have a lot of input in London and in the Thames Valley. Both those regions are served, I must say, exceptionally well by two very exceptional regional directors, who are very collaborative, as are their teams. That picture has improved, but it does not take away from the fact that this is an incredibly complex and challenging exercise. 

Q54 Rob Butler: Ms Binning, from your CRC’s perspective, how would you assess the process of transition? 

Suki Binning: Similarly to what David said. The timetable is very ambitious. It is not helped by the Covid situation. Locally, relationships with the regional transition boards are positive and very collaborative. That is all very good. I would, however, welcome a pause and a reflection on the timetable for transition in the light of Covid. 

Q55 Rob Butler: What would feel a more realistic timeframe to you? 

Suki Binning: I would look for a pause to look at where we are now and, in light of today’s news about further restrictions, take that into account and say, “Is June 2021 now a reasonable date to transfer?” The staff you have spoken about are very committed and are working very hard on making sure that we continue to provide a service that serves our communities, at the same time as doing the transition. I would like some time to have a look at that date and say, “Is that realistic now because of the pandemic?” 

Q56 Rob Butler: I infer from what you are suggesting that you do not think it is realistic. 

Suki Binning: I think it is really ambitious. It is putting a huge amount of stress on the operational delivery of services. 

Q57 Rob Butler: Mr Shortt, what is your assessment of the transition process, and would you share similar concerns to those we have already heard? 

Trevor Shortt: Yes, I share the concerns that have already been expressed. This is a complex transaction. We have the added complexities of Covid and the speed at which it is being done, all of which are stressors. Doubtless, there is a real will to deliver it both on this side and on the side of the Department. There is a huge amount of resource, time and energy going into that. 

As David said, at the beginning we felt perhaps a little distant from it. That position has improved at national and regional level. We also have some incredibly good regional directors across the NPS working with our own regional chief executives across some quite complex programme lines on the project to deliver it, but there is likely to be a chunk of outstanding work post transfer that will take some time to pack down and for the system to be performing again in the way we would all like it to be. 

Q58 Rob Butler: Mr Hart, do you want to add anything to what has been said about the generalities of transition planning? I would be particularly keen to hear your views on risks that are associated with it, and what you are doing to mitigate them. 

Adam Hart: I have a couple of points to add. First and foremost, it is right for me to say that I believe we have had very good engagement from the Department, especially over latter weeks and months. They are to be commended for the efforts that they are undertaking. It is a challenge. It is incredibly ambitious. I think that is recognised. 

It feels, however, that, because of that engagement, we are able to shine a spotlight on the areas of deficiency at this moment in time. We have to recognise that we are three months in, since the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. I would articulate that it perhaps does not quite feel like three months into a 12-month programme. I think we are still getting off the blocks. We need to expedite in order to safely deliver a transition in June 2021.

It feels like we are trying to do a 12 to 18-month programme in the remaining nine months. That would be my best descriptor. I say that because of the complexities of the programme itself, which is, effectively, taking 20 or 21 unique models and moving them into a unified model, whether that is technology, training requirements or staffing. The second reason I say that is that operating in the pandemic is, quite rightly, draining resources away to the frontline service that we need to provide and giving less management time to something as important as the successful transition. That can only heighten the risk. 

We are looking to mitigate as a CRC provider. I know that the MOJ is always seeking to mitigate risks, but for me those are the risks that we are currently facing. Having continued open and frank dialogue is a big risk mitigator. I am encouraged that that is there, but I think the way to best mitigate the risk is to slow things down a little bit and take stock. We should make sure that we have all the attributes of the system understood, known and planned for. We should have a single detailed plan. At the moment, we have a relatively high-level milestone-based plan. We need something of real rigour that sits underneath that milestone plan. I have no doubt that is being worked up, but, three months in, it would be good for all of us to be working to that. 

Another way of de-risking is to make sure we have clear dependencies between what is a donor recipient arrangement between the CRCs and the National Probation Service, and indeed the DF providers, and to understand the critical path to try to head off some of the risks that we have not even identified yet, because we do not have detailed analysis. If we could determine that critical path, we could head off quite a few of the risks of the future. I am sure some of those things will be available, hopefully in the near future. 

Some of them link to having a detailed target operating model for us all to share as the end state, the goal. As was mentioned in the previous evidence session, I do not believe that is due until early in the new year. Along with other materials, those are the types of things that will de-risk the approach and make it a success, which we all want, regardless of what our individual thoughts are about the good and the bad of undertaking the change. The change is going to happen; it needs to happen safely. 

Q59 Rob Butler: Briefly on that last point, do you share any of the concerns that Mr Hood expressed that there could potentially be a risk to public protection and public safety? Adam Hart: Given the statement that I just made, running what feels like a 12 to 18-month programme in a nine-month window has to heighten the risk to public safety. We are duty-bound to attempt to mitigate that. 

Q60 Rob Butler: Mr Shortt and Ms Binning, would you share those concerns? 

Suki Binning: Yes. The risks increase when you are trying to rush the transition through. 

Trevor Shortt: Any structural change brings its risks. I support what has been said, and we will obviously do everything we possibly can, together with the Department, to ensure that we mitigate those risks. 

Q61 Maria Eagle: You have all just expressed varying levels of concern about the risks of transition to the capability of the system and to public safety. Do you think there has been enough consideration of the needs of those who are being supervised by the system in the design of the new arrangements and the implementation of the transition? 

David Hood: I will leave one of those points to Suki. In terms of the transition, it feels to me that the best outcome for service users will be that the transition is carried out and completed smoothly, so that the services, as far as service users are concerned, feel very much the same moving from one to the other. 

That must be at risk if we are rushing a transition that is in danger on day one of being in a difficult position. It will inevitably therefore have an effect on the quality of service to service users. Coming back to the point made earlier, we need to be very careful that the transition is done effectively in the best interests of service users. 

Q62 Maria Eagle: Does anybody else want to come in on that point? 

Suki Binning: We have a service user council with representation from our service users, and they have been involved. We are also inviting the National Probation Service to seek representation from our service user council on the transition boards, which will ensure that they are part of the plans and can highlight concerns from a service user perspective. 

Adam Hart: Every major service I have ever run has always benefited from having service users in the design process. We are about to undertake a substantial change. To my knowledge, service users are not directly involved in the design of the future state solution. It is a little bit difficult because we do not have the TOM in the underlying plan to fully understand whether it is planned to engage with service users. I do not believe that service users across our communities have been engaged. I think that is one of the ways we will mitigate the residual risks. 

Where we have managed to engage with service users as groups and as communities, we have always taken stock and managed to improve services. Like Suki, we have something similar where we listen to the concerns and the positives that come from service users. We tailor our services on a regular basis. That would feel a totally appropriate thing to do. 

Trevor Shortt: I echo that. I do not think there has been, to my knowledge anyway, any input from service users in the overall design. However, we have service user councils, which are quite mature, running across all our services. Since the initial change in direction 12 months ago, when it was clear that CRCs were not going to be part of the landscape, we have been working quite closely with NPS regional directors as they have come into post to extend those service user arrangements and join them up, with User Voice as the VCS organisation sitting behind that and helping us to operate those services. 

I echo one other previous point. Critically in this transition, we want to ensure that some of the small bespoke and local arrangements that are of real benefit to service users are able to be picked up and carried on. 

Q63 Maria Eagle: How are the probation service users or offenders who are being managed by the system being supported during the transition? Are there plans in place? What are some of the risks, if any, associated with the transition for those who are being managed at present by your organisations and by the NPS separately? 

Trevor Shortt: Our expectation, which was set out by Justin Russell in evidence earlier this afternoon, is that, as case loads move, the staff working on those case loads move together with them. There should be a fundamental underpinning continuity that helps in the transition. As I said a moment ago, it is some of the other services that are placed in and around the interventions that we particularly need to secure. 

David Hood: Agreeing with Trevor’s point, I reiterate a point I made earlier. Continuity is critical. We know what our services and needs are. You can predict them looking forward. At the moment, many of those needs are met by the additional services that we receive and benefit from, delivered in particular by third sector providers. It is critical that those are available on day one of the new world. It is not clear to us that all of them will be either the type of service or the volume of service to meet the need. 

Adam Hart: The only thing I would add is that every CRC is relatively unique in its delivery model to some extent. In the CRCs in which we are involved, we have a model where approximately one in two, or one in three, of our staff are probation practitioners offering supervisory and other services. The other staff provide wrap-around services. Some provide interventions, but quite a lot provide services that do not readily appear in the user manual. Some of them are peer mentors or are in other services that we provide outside the norm. It is important in terms of the day one service in June 2021 to recognise that those wrap-around services are really important to the transition process itself, not only the safety of that process but the quality of the process. 

Q64 Andy Slaughter: I am reflecting on this discussion as we get towards the end of it. It has a bit of a feeling of after the Lord Mayor’s show about it. You are all concerned that there are risks in the transition or at least in the timetable for the transition. A lot of other people were concerned, including the Government, that it is a model that has not worked and that is why it is being abandoned after a short period of time. Whichever perspective you come from, it is a traumatic process and perhaps an unusual process for the public sector to go through. 

It affects the public and it affects users. I want to go back and look at staff again. As Mr Butler said, staff are at the heart of this. It is the quality of staff and the morale of staff that will deliver a decent service. Without being too personal about it, what is going to happen to all of you? Some of you come from a public sector background. Are you going back to that, or are you going to manage other parts of your private company’s organisation? What is happening to the senior management, and what is happening to the staff on the ground? 

Suki Binning: Senior managers and the staff will be transferred to wherever the work is going. If it is work that is going to the NPS—unpaid work programmes and case management—they will be on the list to transfer to the National Probation Service. If the work they do falls into the dynamic framework, they will move to those services. That includes staff across the spectrum. 

Q65 Andy Slaughter: I think you said you had a probation service background. Are you going back to that, or are you sticking with your company? 

Suki Binning: I will be on the list for transfer. What happens in the future, I do not yet know. 

Q66 Andy Slaughter: Does that go for the rest of you? I think some of you have more of a consultancy background, so I do not know where you are going. 

Trevor Shortt: The process of assignment is happening right now for the majority of our staff. There is, in all fairness, quite a degree of clarity for people who sit in very obvious places in the national system post June next year. There is less clarity for some of the parent organisation staff and some of what we call our back-office staff—that is inelegant; they are staff who look after things like finance, HR and other services. Finally, there is a group of staff who perhaps sit across different service areas. The balance of that is not quite clear yet in the new model. Some of them are disproportionately represented in the VCS partnerships we have. There is still some degree of uncertainty for a section of our staff, albeit with clarity for the majority. 

Q67 Andy Slaughter: That must add another layer of uncertainty on top of what must be a very traumatic period for the staff in any event. I do not know whether any other panellists want to comment on that, particularly with an eye to the fact that perhaps a high proportion of your staff will not have worked for the National Probation Service previously. For them, it will not be going back to something; it will be something fresh. How are you supporting them, and how is that transfer being managed? 

Adam Hart: We are very much at the start of that assignment process. It certainly has not completed yet. What we are already experiencing are probably more questions than the answers we are able to provide at this moment at time. Where that leads us is having very regular dialogue with our staff, who, in some respects, fall into at least two categories: those who have certainty about their future and those who do not. Those who do still have a huge number of questions that remain to be answered; hence my points about the target operating model and so on. That would immensely help with being able to answer those questions. The second group, however, are the people I and Mr Shortt mentioned in terms of the support service—the back-office staff. We are awaiting those responses as we speak. 

It is worth adding that various key senior members of staff have already started to transfer under agreement, where it is seen as appropriate to do so. I think that is the correct collaborative approach to take, but it applies more pressure to the CRCs in general, as we are now starting to lose quite senior managers to the NPS system, to allow the NPS to run their own programmes of change, because of course they are changing at the same time. That is a really important point. 

We have also undertaken quite a few secondments in both directions to look at how we embed some of the thinking from CRCs into NPS, and NPS into CRCs, so that we can learn rapidly. There is willingness to collaborate and demonstration of that fact. However, I do not think that gets us to the point of being able to answer everybody’s questions quite yet. It feels like we are a little way from knowing those answers just yet. 

David Hood: Echoing Adam’s point, there are a lot of opportunities for communication with staff and for staff to ask questions about the transition. Many of those opportunities are very collaborative. Last week, there was a joint session in London that involved the current MD of MTC and the London regional director. It involved CRC and NPS staff. It was focused very much on transition. The opportunities are there, but Adam is absolutely right: until we have answers to critical questions around where certain individuals will be placed and whether they have a role in the NPS, we are in a place where a lot of the answers to the questions that are being asked cannot be given. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be addressed. The sooner we get to a place where it can be, then of course the better. 

This is obviously a staff business, and we have to make sure that they are retained and looked after. The history of the last few years has seen many experienced staff depart from probation. The challenge is how we stem that and, indeed, how we bring more experienced staff back into that world. Giving them clarity around the future will be critical to that. 

Q68 Andy Slaughter: If you are not getting answers to those questions at this stage, with only a matter of months to go, why is that happening and who are you not getting answers from? 

David Hood: The answers are not coming from the Department at the moment. That reflects where they are in their transition planning. We are about to enter a process of identifying those in the CRCs who will be assigned. That will take place over the coming months. As Adam said, we are expecting an answer on other staff very soon. We expect the answers to come soon. From my perspective, they cannot come soon enough, but they need to come from the Department as part of their planning process. 

Suki Binning: We have been working very closely with the regional probation directors on the transfer of staff, particularly from a cultural perspective. The staff in my CRCs are going from being employee owners to the civil service. We are conscious that on both sides that is going to be quite a significant change. We have been working very closely with the regional directors and having joint communications to make the transition, and ensuring that staff adapt to those changes. 

Q69 Andy Slaughter: I will end on this point. You are not quite as garrulous as a lot of the witnesses we have in front of us. 

Chair: That is a compliment. 

Andy Slaughter: It is a sort of compliment. I get the feeling that you all feel rather bruised by this experience, but also a little bit reticent. I do not know whether that is because you have to continue to negotiate the transition or because your companies have other contracts with Government, but I will give you a final chance. Our role is to report and send a message to the Ministry to say what we think has gone wrong and what still needs to be got right. Can you have a final go at saying what you think are the key mistakes and what still needs to be got right? 

Adam Hart: I would summarise it very succinctly: there is no contingency. To move forward with a programme as important as this and as sensitive towards public safety as this with no contingency is the area that needs to be looked at. 

There is no doubting that given sufficient time the risks can be mitigated, but I do not think that the nine months or so available is sufficient time to mitigate all of the risks to a highly satisfactory level. The simple comment I would make is to try to create that space and the contingency so that nothing feels rushed, and everything feels appropriately considered before action is taken. 

Chair: That is a fair observation. Thank you very much for your help and for your assistance. Although I appreciate that the circumstances cannot be easy for everybody, whatever one’s views of the policy decisions that were taken, I want to thank all of you for the work that you have done in relation to the sector. I hope you will pass that on to all your staff and your colleagues. We appreciate it. If we do not have more evidence from you, we wish all of you individually well and also those who work for you. I am very grateful to you for your time and for your evidence today.

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