It was no surprise to receive questions from members this week following the latest pronouncement by the Secretary of State that raising salaries for Prison Officers is a priority as part of the government's drive to improve standards of prison safety.
Whilst we have no difficulty acknowledging the dire conditions that our brothers and sisters in the POA are facing across the HMP estate and supporting their cause, the fact is that not all the Ministers fine words are to be taken literally.
For starters, much of the proposed increases are in the form of market supplements applicable to a limited number of ‘hard to recruit in’ establishments and secondly, POA’s Steve Gillan tells me that the package on offer will do next to nothing to prevent the numbers of Prison Officers quitting the service at a higher rate of knots than it takes to get new trainees out on the floors.
In terms of Napo’s pay agenda, we need to see some radical reform to bring the sort of improvements needed to restore our members pay levels to a fair and reasonable rate for the job.
If the responses from Ministers to our earlier discussions are to be believed, then there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the Prison reform programme, which is resulting in one major statement after another, won’t work without a properly funded and resourced probation presence.
Meanwhile I can confirm that NOMS, urged on by Napo are doing their best to keep probation pay as near to the top of the Ministers in boxes as they can.
Prisons and Courts Bill
Yesterday’s announcement of the Bill which it is claimed will afford a greater focus on offender rehabilitation and modernisation of the decrepit courts system, were accompanied by a plethora of fact sheets which set out how it is intended that the reforms will be implemented and the impact they will have across the two institutions.
During my discussion with Justin Russell (the new Director General for Prisons and Probation and Youth Custody see also todays Statement to Parliament: Youth justice update) I pointed out that yet again another opportunity had been lost to put the role of Probation firmly into the emerging picture. Justin assured me that Probation is very much part of the grand plan and expects more specific statements to this effect over the next month.
Meanwhile, here are the links to the fact sheets issued by the MoJ yesterday: Policy paper: Prisons and Courts Bill: fact sheets
Napo’s campaigning strikes a chord
Earlier this month you may have heard that the Prime Minister gave a speech in which she promised to take steps to tackle the systemic cycle of domestic violence and abuse in British society. Press release: Prime Minister's plans to transform the way we tackle domestic violence and abuse
One positive aspect of the Prisons and Courts Bill is the section on the prohibition of cross-examination in person in specified circumstances in family proceedings.
At the meeting a few months ago with Families Minister Sir Oliver Heald, Jay Barlow and Olivia Fitch provided expert testimony as to possible solutions to this awful scenario, and it looks from what’s being proposed like Napo has struck the right chord.
If this section of the Bill becomes legislation, then this will go down as one of the most meaningful reforms that we have seen in this area for many decades.
It’s not just Through the Gate that’s failed
This week we saw yet another damning report by Her Majesty's Inspector for Probation into the implementation and delivery of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements.
It’s another shambles and more evidence that many of the CRCs are simply not fit for purpose.
You can see the high quality analysis in full through the link below but here is an extract from the report that confirms what all of you in the Probation landscape know all too well.
‘As RARs were introduced, established Probation Trusts were disbanded and new organisations – Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and a National Probation Service (NPS) – created to deliver probation services. The transition has been challenging, and performance so far is variable. In our routine inspections we are finding the quality of NPS work acceptable by and large (but there are notable exceptions and shortfalls) whereas CRCs are often struggling to deliver quality work consistently well.
Generally, we are finding CRCs with high, variable or changing caseloads for some professional staff, and insufficient attention given so far to staff supervision and quality assurance. Other common shortcomings include inadequate assessment or subsequent management of the risk of harm to others, inadequate or inconsistent supervision of service users, and – of particular relevance here – insufficient purposeful intervention likely to reduce an individual’s likelihood of reoffending.
The change to new arrangements has been very demanding, and to compound matters, workload shortfalls have led to financial constraints and uncertainties for CRCs and a reluctance to commit to the settled arrangements with other providers needed to support RAR and other delivery. Information is not collected on the distribution of RAR orders (as between CRCs and the NPS) but the CRCs carry the bulk of these cases.’
Dame Glenys Stacey also said: "We advise government to consider whether, with changes to Probation company contracts these orders can be made to work well, or whether it is time for a more fundamental rethink.”
Over the past few months Napo has been meeting with members of the Justice Select Committee to spell out just what a disaster the so called ‘Rehabilitation Revolution’ has become.
Maybe it’s not a rethink that is needed but a straightforward counter-revolution.
Good weekend all.
- ilawrence@napo.org.uk's blog
- Log in or register to post comments