January 18, 2010: NAPO Call To Abolish NOMS

In a briefing paper for parliamentarians published today, probation union Napo is calling on the next government to abolish the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and to create separate operational arms for the Prisons and Probation Services.

This would mean there would be a head of the Probation Service with a voice in government, which is currently absent, and a small core team of senior Probation staff with responsibility for issues such as training, employment relations, IT, Offender Assessment, Programmes and Partnership Working. The abolition of NOMS would save several hundred million by reducing bureaucracy, avoiding duplication and stopping unnecessary demands for information and data to the centre.

The Prisons and Probation Services were merged by the current government in April 2008 - a move not supported by Napo. Napo believes the existence of NOMS is seriously undermining the ability of the Probation Service to achieve its fundamental aims. Senior managers of NOMS now create policy and strategy in relation to the Probation Service. Their background and bias is with the Prison Service and they have little or no experience of working with offenders in the community. Napo believes, therefore, they are not well placed to know how to introduce efficiencies and prioritise spending in the community without compromising public protection.

Napo believes the creation of the merged agency was a fundamental mistake. They understand that staff in the Prison Service perform a difficult and demanding role like their colleagues in the Probation Service, but these roles, whilst complementary in certain ways, are very different.

The union argues that the two services are wedded together in a coerced union, created on the erroneous basis that the two organisations perform the same task. The relationship between them is currently distorted to fit a mould preconceived by the Prison Service, who lack knowledge and appreciation of the work of Probation. As a result the model is dysfunctional and it is fortuitous if Probation is able to deliver efficiently.

NOMS works on the assumption that policies are described as "through the gate", assuming that those supervised by the Probation Service have previously experienced custody. In reality, two-thirds of the 150,000 individuals currently supervised on court orders have never been to prison. Napo is highly critical of the leadership team in NOMS, all of whom have a background in the Prison Service and are not in Napo’s view effective champions of the Probation Service.

Staff from the two agencies are subject to different terms and conditions. Those from the Prison Service are civil servants protected by surplus list policies. Those from Probation in NOMS headquarter are secondees and have limited rights. If an individual post of a civil servant is abolished the post holder is placed on the surplus list until another post becomes available. In contrast those from Probation have their secondment terminated.

Napo's Assistant General Secretary, Harry Fletcher, commented:

"The merger of Prisons and Probation in 2008 was a dreadful mistake. There is no significant Probation presence in the new agency’s hierarchy. It is dominated by Prison staff and culture. All existing templates of the Prison Service have not been altered to take account of the nuance and different styles offered by Probation. Even Probation Circulars have been turned into ‘Instructions’, mimicking established Prisons’ practice, without any consultation".

"The Prison Service management ethos of centralised control and command is not appropriate to the Probation Service, which has been managed historically on the basis of consultation and wherever possible consent. This approach has helped Probation to sustain excellent industrial relations which are currently being undermined. The creation of two separate operational arms for Prison and Probation is needed urgently. The need for a large regional bureaucracy will then disappear. If this does not happen the Probation Service’s efficiency will be hampered, standards of supervision will fall and taxpayers’ money will continue to be wasted".