The negotiations leading up to the offer started over three years ago. Throughout, NPS Employer side negotiators have been very clear about their remit only covering the NPS. Whilst, technically this is true everyone also knows that, in reality, neither the Government nor CRCs can ignore any aspects of the likely award.
Competition Unwelcome
There is a recruitment and retention crisis across probation as a result of the failed TR revolution. The NPS is running huge recruitment drives across PSO, PO and SPO grades, having horribly under-estimated staffing requirements. Meanwhile, CRC’s are also desperately seeking experienced staff following critical Inspection Reports, after initially cutting staff to save money after the MoJ had over-estimated how much income they’d get from the original TR contracts. This means there is competition for staff at local and national level. However, until now this competition has been reasonably constrained by a number of factors, including:
- Common pay rates being maintained
- NPS rules on transferring onto pay band minima
- NPS reputational damage from PAYE and pension fiascos, including around recruitment incentives.
Implementing this award will loosens these constraints considerably.
The biggest constraint has been staff on both sides of the local divide still being paid roughly the same pay. Put simply, there has been no financial incentive to jump from NPS to CRCs. If CRC’s don’t at least match higher band maxima and faster pay progression then they’ll lose staff to the NPS.
Movement has also been constrained by NPS ‘rules’ generally not allowing staff to start above their band minima, regardless of the member’s pay in the CRC. With faster progression being supported in the new NPS system, staff could be tempted to take a short term hit if, within a year or two, they would progress to more than they’re currently paid and then some.
In areas where recruitment has already been very difficult, the NPS have offered higher starting pay via Market Forces Supplements (MSF). This tactic has been undermined, not least by the NPS implementing them in their usual chaotic, inconsistent and opaque manner. Whilst MSF payments will remain an option, faster pay progression is easier and more transparent to operate than MSF payments. The offer also contains incentives for new starters to move areas, e.g. PQUIP graduates willing to move to start a post more quickly. Unless the CRC’s increase their current pay rates they could see staff flooding to fill NPS vacancies.
Professional Unity
The Government’s consultation on the future structure of the probation service recommended a new unified set of professional standards covering all offender managers. This has arisen as a result of criticism from Probation Inspections and the Justice Select Committee. This pay offer re-enforces this direction of travel by tying pay progression to professional competencies – these will be developed with unions between now and 2020.
CRCs will be held to these same standards in any version of the current or future CRC contracts. Any CRC trying to avoid this will be telling their own staff they are 2nd class professionals. Napo’s believe that some CRC’s at least are committed to better than this.
CRCs certainly can’t expect to keep staff if the NPS improves its game on training and support, as is inevitable if the CBPPF is to work. Nor can CRCs justify fast-track promotions for PSO’s willing to take on some duties usually reserved for qualified PO’s without being able to demonstrate these staff have the skills and competencies set out in the CBPPF and the aligned professional standards. Try it and the wrath of inspectors will come crashing down on CRCs as soon as anything goes wrong.
Avoiding these pitfalls requires additional CRC investment in pay as well as better training and professional development frameworks being developed in partnership with unions. If CRCs ignore this reality, they will lose the new competition for staff. If MoJ ignore this reality, they’ll condemn the CRCs to continued operational failures.