Saturday 24 August 2013

Designed to Fail

So it looks like the end really is nigh with Probation Trusts apparently having been sent their winding-up instructions. They will all cease to exist by 31st March 2014, just 7 months away. Even the Chief of West Mercia, David Chantler, an enthusiastic supporter of TR, strikes a sad note in his blog, which I think is a bit rich as he seems to me to be one of the architects for our demise:- 

Look, I have used the term PbR with no negative connotations, in fact our willingness to engage with many of the elements of Transforming Rehabilitation have brought some interesting comment in the twittersphere about the extent to which we are colluding in our own demise. I'll go further than that; we have had positive comment from unlikely sources including the Institute for Government, from CLINKS, from NCVO etc. about our inclusive commissioning model.

And yet we have now had the communication kicking off the close down process. Like any bad thing that you knew was going happen it's not a surprise at one level, we have never underestimated the intention to make Transforming Rehabilitation happen, but when it actually comes, and you open the email to read the details, it's still a bit like seeing the disappointing exam results in black and white for the first time, perhaps not an experience that many of you reading this share but hopefully you get my drift.

Already many colleagues are reporting unease and rumours concerning the 'paper' split of staff between the 'top offender managers' and the rest. As far as I know, it's not supposed to involve named individuals but rather posts instead, but that strikes me as a bit of an optimistic proposition that ignores human nature. As many have already observed, there's going to be an almighty row if selection is going to be attempted without a competitive interview process, not least in order to satisfy employment legislation. Lots of grievances guys!

As I've already mentioned, the MoJ will begin the commissioning process for new probation providers in the middle of next month, and Ian Lawrence, Napo's General Secretary, seems to be telling members that their interests are being looked after by lots of behind the scenes negotiations:-

It's the job of any responsible Trade Union to promote and protect the interests of its members in all eventualities, and everyone knows that despite the progress of our campaign and the prospect of industrial action, Napo must prepare for the grim prospect that Graylings 'grand guignol' farce might get onto the statute books and be implemented by the next election. 

If it does then our members won't thank us for not having done all in our power to have tried to secure the best possible arrangements for those who may want to leave and those who have to remain. That's why your negotiating team of Tom Rendon, Mike McClelland and myself have been heavily engaged (it seems like forever) in discussions with the MoJ, Ministers and the NNC to try and secure a framework agreement that guarantees the protections that we know you would want to see in place. 


I'm sure that will reassure members, not, but in the middle of all this, where a casual outside observer might feel that the government knew what it was doing and things were likely to get better as a result of this whole TR saga - because you only institute change on this level to make things better don't you - up pops a blog post that says it's actually all designed to make things worse.

Mathew Taylor of the RSA makes some very interesting points regarding the failings of Payment by Results, the almost total lack of any evidence that shows it works and in fact is quite likely to make things worse instead. He suggests that far from being a sign of complete incompetence, it could all be part of a cunning plan:- 

This could be seen as mere incompetence but there may be a more subtle explanation of the Government’s apparent insouciance about the likelihood of its scheme delivering better outcomes. After all, a similar an attitude is visible in its relaxed response to underwhelming performance of the Work Programme.


Consider four points:
(1) For perfectly intellectually respectable reasons, many Conservatives are sceptical of the state’s ability to spend money wisely and achieve social improvement.
(2) Even defenders of state provision recognise that much public spending goes on ‘dead weight costs’; things which would have happened sooner or later without  state intervention. For example, many released prisoners would not re-offend even if left entirely to their own devices, many unemployed people would get jobs without employment services.
(3) We continue to face a major squeeze on public spending, one which is worsened by the long list of cuts considered to be off the table because of their potential political toxicity.
(4) Nevertheless, it is hard, in the face of social problems, for ministers to defend a ‘there’s nothing I can do’ position without looking complacent or ineffectual (one reason why the state grows even under Tory Governments).
The medium term outcome of delivering services through payment by results while also cutting per capita spending on those services may be to highlight that public spending at the levels the taxpayer is willing to fund is simply not efficacious.
Thus if PbR fails to deliver better outcomes, gradually, ministers may find it easier to  divest themselves of various public policy responsibilities. To those who argue that such an approach is an abnegation of responsibility, the Government can point to the continuing existence of low performing PbR schemes and invite critics such as charities to put their money where their mouth is by becoming a provider themselves.
Opponents of outsourcing focus on the transfer of public funding and assets to the private and not for profit sectors. Critics of PbR worry that it may not lead to improvements in outcomes. But perhaps both are missing the point. The longer term, deeper impact of introducing payment by results in a context of austerity may be to provide a rationale for an unprecedented narrowing of the social outcomes for which Government accepts responsibility.    

54 comments:

  1. 'The longer term, deeper impact of introducing payment by results in a context of austerity may be to provide a rationale for an unprecedented narrowing of the social outcomes for which Government accepts responsibility.'
    Exactly right....those idiots who are participating in our demise 'with the best of intentions' need to understand this!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ayn Rand must be smiling in her cold lonely grave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not familiar with her work, but had a look on wikipedia - objectivism?

      Delete
  3. It's true that outsourcing absolves government from responsibility, but it shouldn't absolve them from blame.
    They are handing over the nations public services to companies with piss poor ethical and moral history. They are little more then pirates and racketeers. Non have any sense of social responsibility and exist only to extract as much profit as possible regardless of what misery or destruction they cause in doing so.
    Outsourcing has many failings as seen with the work programme. It would be interesting to see just who would bid for contracts now in hindsight if it was put out to tender again.
    Aswell as failings it's unpredictable. Contract interpretation and employee commitment should be serious concerns. But also because public sector no longer occupies a central possition but spread across too many fields of interest, with profit being the only driving force.
    I have no doubt it will all collapse, and with considerable social consequences.
    It will of course be the private sector that will be held responsible. They are after all running the show.
    But blame? No. That sits squarely at the feet of government.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Netnipper: Ian Lawrence, leader of a 'responsible trade union', writes in his blog, in defending negotiations: 'to try and secure a framework agreement that guarantees the protections that we know you would want to see in place'. Even if a framework agreement is reached, I think it is stretching credulity to think there will ever be protections that are guaranteed. Nothing can be guaranteed. You have only to look at how Trusts have railroaded their way through the existing National Codes and Conditions – our current protections! Conditions of service are going to plummet with TR and there ain't anything Napo can do about that. Napo's future is as a staff association and lobbyist. As we know, Napo is a responsible trade union.

    On the indicative ballot we get the line: '...there is overwhelming support amongst our respective memberships about embarking on Industrial Action'. I am sure there was overwhelming support expressed by those who took the time to vote. Napo, however, is a responsible trade union.

    Napo's internal strife over the past twelve months or so and the loss of key personnel - not to mention the financial costs - at the most critical juncture in its history, is presumably another example of responsible trade unionism.

    Let's not pretend: there is no twin track of negotiations and resistance – resistance is for the banners and mastheads. Negotiations from a position of weakness will get lots of promises, but no guarantees. It was the apathetic membership who failed to vote in the indicative ballot who sent Napo's negotiators 'naked into the conference chamber'. Imagine, the muscle that would show if we could say there was an 80% turnout and 96% are prepared to strike,

    Napo, as a responsible trade union, will presently say to its membership, this is the best deal we could get under trying circumstances, please vote in favour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Netnipper

      "Napo, as a responsible trade union, will presently say to its membership, this is the best deal we could get under trying circumstances, please vote in favour."

      Yup!Hit nail on head.

      Delete
    2. There is no deals to negotiate. Its sold to the cheapest contractor and getting shafted or its not. As for the trying circumstances I think they are yet to come

      Delete
  5. At a training day a few weeks back I met colleague after not seeing them for a couple of years. Their attitude to TR? Well frankly they knew sod all about what it really meant to the rank and file. They were genuinely surprised when I pointed out they would also be facing a pay cut and worse conditions of employment.

    I hate to sound unpleasant but in such a pivotal moment in probation's history this isn't even pragmatism it's just plain ignorance I'm afraid. And this is exactly the reason why the indicative vote turnout was probably so poor. I still hear people saying that it's ok because Labour will repeal all this in two years time, to which I listen in disbelief and groan every time.

    In a few months time when we are all scrapping over a few jobs in the public sector probation service while we wave our PSO colleagues off to Serco or whomever, there will be alot of people to blame, not least members of the profession itself, who have proven pitfully complacent, timid and frustratingly apolitical despite the coming disaster ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When probation stopped being a career and became only a job, it also lost a collective conscience.
      I've heard staff recently inform their manager that they were going to register a complaint with the union regarding their treatment in the office. You won't be suprised when I tell you that non of the staff involved were actually union members!
      Whilst I think there is a degree of apathy, I feel ignorance has been a much larger factor.

      Delete
  6. As a PSO i am aware of how major a clusterfudge this is, it is a Smörgåsbord of fail/pain and either worse terms and conditions, higher case load, less money time to do anything or redundancy. Its is quite frustrating in the office when people dont seem to think its too bad or management try to talk up the benefits of mutalisation or working with charities/private sector. How can you fight apathy and people helping to make this happen.

    Also im not under the illusion that labour/lib dems would repeal this train crash of policy, there will be 10 year contracts and no government would want to break them not matter how costly or fucked up it gets.

    Also, how much evidence do you need with all going to show that this is a batshit crazy plan. Nothing seems to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lean on your spades ladies and gents. Truth it this is the beginning of the end. I stopped caring some months ago following a NAPO meeting which was more concerned with supporting which candidate was nominated rather than what is happening to Probation. If I'm being honest, from this point on in this job it's going to be the very bare minimum of effort from me, late starts, long lunches and early finishes.

      Whilst my colleagues may gossip, this time next year I'll hopefully never have to see them again!

      Delete
    2. Sounds just like what the private sector will be looking for when recruiting. Anything else and they'd have to pay more then national minimum wage.

      Delete
    3. I had another trade prior to becoming a Probation Officer, most likely too old to go back to that. However, I really cannot see me working for G4S et al, so I might just take a nice little mundane job collecting trolleys.

      Delete
    4. 'Clusterfudge' is certainly a new one on me - as indeed is 'batshit crazy'. Cool.

      Delete
    5. There's also 'Bubbshit' Bubbshite' and 'Bubbollox'!

      Delete
    6. TheUrbaneGorilla25 August 2013 at 14:44

      "Mucking fuddle" - tried and tested.

      Delete
    7. Oh I love the bubb ones! lol

      Delete
  7. If Trusts cease to exist by March 2014, surely this will mean we are all out of work at that point, as they are our employers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All staff will either be transferred to NPS or one of the 21 'Newco's'

      Delete
  8. The government have realised that, at the moment, they don’t get the blame when things go wrong. So they can privatise functions and cut budgets and make it impossible for services to continue in the long-term.

    My evidence for this is the police. There are now 15,000 fewer police officers and 23,000 civilian staff since 2010 and naturally this impacts greatly on the service the public receives. But the public and media conveniently forget who originated the chaos and blame the police when things go wrong.

    In Kent, the police have said they can’t supply cover for all 85 Remembrance Day parades scheduled this year. This is a direct result of losing 500 officers and, quite frankly, there probably aren’t many more than 85 officers available for the whole of Kent on Remembrance Day to cover normal day-to-day business. A (Tory) Kent MP said he knows that the budget has been cut but 'this is no excuse’, which is a sentiment that the public seem to agree with without any consideration to reality.

    The same happens with Probation and in the long-run, when it’s all gone pear shaped, it won’t be the government which gets the blame, but Probation Officers and probation providers.

    With a dumbed down population, a dumbed down press and a subservient public sector leadership, the government are in a win win situation. Slash budgets, privatise services and still not get any blame when it all goes wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. basically napo and unison are done in this, they have done fuck all to challenge this. Napo will be come a small time union tilting at windmills. Very sad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That comment about NAPO & UNISON doing FA is just not true. But what do people expect? An NUM style response? A POA type walk out? This isn't The Rag Trade. We are less than 50% of staff and less than half of those are remotely active. We are in the most hostile environment in my lifetime. NAPO has to fight AND negotiate. It is all far more nuanced than some folk seem to understand. MoJ and NOMS have no reason to capitulate as they WANT us gone. YOU try and work with that.

      Delete
    2. Barristers and court officials aren't in the rag trade either.
      Whilst I think the point expressed at 22.16 could have been made more politely, I tend to agree with it. NAPO don't want to appear millitant, but non of those it represents wants to be unemployed either.
      I for one feel very disappointed with NAPPO.

      Delete
    3. I think one of my key complaints of Napo is that in an internet-connected age where getting information can be published quickly and easily, there has been almost complete silence. People want information and commentary in order to stimulate some fight or campaign. A blog post from the GS every 3 or 4 weeks is just not good enough. There should have been a daily campaign bulletin.

      Delete
    4. There is still, lets not forget, a second reading of the TR agenda to be had, although no date has yet been set for it.
      Given the comments made in the House of Lords and the governments insistance of pushing the agenda forward without at least waiting for that second reading is just utter contempt for the views of the service the public and indeed the Lords.
      This surely gives NAPO a very firm basis to demonstrate discontent, or at least to raise the profile signifigantly in the public areana.
      Enough has been said behind closed doors, and enough oppertunities missed already.
      If nothing else NAPO can prepare the battle field in preperation for the second reading.
      And remember, there,s a difference between being militant and being passionate.

      Delete
  10. Merseyside are also bending over backwards to facilitate TR. they have formed a mutual with Cumbria and Lancashire called Innovo (no idea why).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is it just me or does every mutual 'brand'name grate? Like a Madonalds workers 'Have a Nice Day', it all sounds so shallow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most things that are cheap and nasty seem to have that effect.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if mutual uniforms will be anything like those worn by Macdonalds staff?

      Delete
    3. Agree about bloody irritating names - was going to suggest oovavoo - but it's already bloody well taken!

      Delete
  12. You may have already read it Jim, but there's a very good article and some excellent quotes here.
    'Our Kingdom "The attack on britidh justice: Whos on the demolition team?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks - good article basically saying there are virtually no people at the MoJ with expert knowledge in criminal justice matters!

      http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jon-mack/attack-on-british-justice-who-is-on-demolition-squad

      Delete
  13. If the Trusts will cease to exist by 31st March next year, and the new providers aren't in place until the autumn, then what happens in the interim? And more importantly, who will pay my wages? Perhaps I'm a bit thick, but surely winding up the Trust is the same as winding up a business - cos they're my current employers - so I'm out of work come April next year?
    PS This is only 'anon' cos I cant seem to work out how to add my name - but I don't want to be anon any more. Deb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TheUrbaneGorilla25 August 2013 at 14:49

      Deb - select Name/URL in the drop down next to "Reply As". Then type whatever name you wish to use in the box below Name. Then preview/publish/whatever.

      Delete
    2. I think all staff transfer either to 'Newcos' or as Tolkny says, the NPS. Sheep and goats. It't not going to be a pleasant process and there's going to be a lot of 'Wakes' to attend. Better press my black tie.

      Delete
  14. I think what will happen is one way or another all existing probation staff will either be transferred to become local employees of the National Probation Service or to whatever organisation runs the outsourcing probation Service work for whichever one of the new 21 areas(one is Wales) the existing probation trust is in. Some of the terms and conditions are national and are being negotiated by Napo, Unison or possibly the SCOOP section of the GMB.

    It might be some folk are able to apply for redundancy before the transfers, I can't imagine how there will be compulsory redundancy before the transfers, but it may be a possibility - more likely I suspect for admin staff,

    All that I have written may not be right so I hope someone in the know clarifies what I have written. It might be a good time to get in touch with your trades union and not too late to join as it will probably be difficult negotiating on your own behalf amidst thousands of staff changes.

    Andrew Hatton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Retired IT manager25 August 2013 at 17:12

      Of course there will be cuts in support staff. Neither NPS or the newcos need 35 sets of HR staff, finance staff, IT staff, CEO's offices. If I worked in one of those areas I would be very worried about my future

      Delete
    2. IT staff might be more needed because I don't suppose MOJ will get a system that links up with the all the necessary agencies and functions first time with out a lot of local fixing and hand holding of practitioners who I doubt are not trained how to be fully functioning typists, WP & computer operators but expected to have a few bits of in service induction and then muddle through.

      I would encourage folk who will be moving on to new contracts very soon to check what is required of them administratively rather than just get on with it - it could be resistance over such as this that MOJ & public might learn probation folk are not complete dopes who muddle along no matter how poor the governments contracts are.

      Delete
  15. The Trust terminate March 2014 to be replaced by Community Rehab Companies that are Government owned in April 2014. The contracts are awarded in October 2014 and the CRC staff transfer to the new privately owned companies to be fully operational by April 2015. TUPE applies 31/3/14 but NOT 1/10/14 - that is the MOJ's sleight of hand.

    NB. This CRC holding company thing, of which there will be 21 (each negotiating with its own pension providers), has NEVER been done before. Just one of the unanswrted question.

    PS Rob Palmer here. I post anonymous because, for some reason, my Kindle HD won't let me post a name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rob,

      I wondered where you'd got to! Nice to hear from you. I hadn't appreciated the TUPE sleight of hand - but some people are saying TUPE gives bugger all protection in any event.

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
    2. The protections remain pretty much on the whims of the new providers. No evidence of integrity from any of the players to date.

      Delete
    3. Quite correct Rob, but all the pensions will go into one local authority scheme and be "guaranteed" by government. There appears to be no appetite for the Civil Service route though, those in NPS will remain as we are. The TUPE needs the questioning , as we will all work for the Government in CRC or in NPS until the CRC are "sold" , they will be bought as a going concern with Government having the right to take back if there is a failure .......that could be a sticking point for most private boards.....

      Delete
  16. 25 years being a PO. Quite happily take redundancy for several reasons. Anybody know of what may or when be in the pipe line? I imagine something must be said soon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a person wants redundancy and it is not offered by current employer it is probably best to apply for transfer to one of the new outsourcing companies rather than to National Probation Service - which I suspect is less likely to have redundancies after the Probation Trusts are abolished.

      Delete
    2. I think redundancy packages are one of the things NAPO are looking at (to avoid statutory minimums). Redundancies likely on both sides.

      Delete
  17. Thank you to everyone, with some insider knowledge on what's going on.....it is not far off my expectations, a shambles of the highest order, with people running the show and the country, who cannot spell let alone demonstrate, integrity!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The blueprint for what's likely to befall probation staff is surely what happened when community service in London was outsourced to Serco. Out of 550 posts pre-privatisation 200 posts were axed by Serco.

    With TR all grades of staff will be affected and it would appear there is some consensus that the most vulnerable group will be support staff.

    As with Serco, I expect that Napo's efforts will be in seeking to achieve voluntary – above statutory minimum redundancy pay levels - rather than compulsory redundancies. For many the difference will be in jumping before being pushed into unemployment. I imagine if there is a deal struck on voluntary redundancies this will cut the ground under any possibility for industrial action, as the threat will be: if there is a strike there will be no VR agreement.

    I only see Napo's strategy as redundancy focused. In light of what happened in London with community service, there could have been great emphasis placed on the imminence of unemployment for many staff, whereas the debate has hovered more around who will be selected for the public service and who will be outsourced. This is a false dichotomy because many of the selected will in fact be axed.

    Maybe it would have concentrated the minds of staff. It would not have been a scare tactics, nor dishonest to have built opinion around the likelihood that they were facing unemployment in droves, that there was no guarantee they would still be in work next year. Perhaps under those circumstances a view may have prevailed that while industrial action may not succeed they had nothing to lose because the spectre of unemployment was the true certainty. This, I think, would have put TR under some real rank and file pressure. Instead we get top table negotiations between the unions and government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks to all for some informative musings. The employers, unions or the Government thus far have shown little respect for dedicated staff as clearly evident in these posts. A way forward in this shambles?

      1. Employers (Trusts): Need to be open,honest and transparent with all their staff re numbers and process of 'selection', rather than the 'we know nothing' stance. Its obvious; POs stay PSOs go NEWCO and support staff are made redundant. It is just not good enough to say 'we know nothing' and blame the MOJ. ? Why are they still banging on about bloody targets and performance! and so-called professionalism a term too readily used to distance themselves from reality.

      2. Unions: Too little, too late and operating in a timescale not reflecting the urgency. Their 'Londoncentric' stance and 'Harry will sort it'attitude - why is he/they not blogging? and their 'shifting deck chairs' mentality is a joke. Why no work to (caseload) rule? At least it shows some bottle - what's to lose?

      3. PBR - why are we discussing this? Its irrelevant!

      4. Mutuals: a sop to supress and placate. The only areas it might be acceptable (ie no profit) are rural, less densely populated Trust areas.

      5. Staff: Frightened to say much fearing 'selection' and don't rock the boat as single yourself out. Lets nominate one day when no clients are offered no appointments and hold a national series of staff meeting to express our concerns (invite NAPO and Unison)
      Chris Grayling - if he's not (yet) been re-shuffled, must be having a right laugh at the collective ineptitude



      Delete
  19. If they make 9,000 of us redundant, shall we have one big leaving do in London?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know I think that's quite a silly remark, but reveals the widespread level of denial still present.

      Delete
    2. Agree with you Jim, lemmings spring to mind.

      Delete
    3. I am ignorant of the motivations of ostrich behaviour, so this is surmise.

      Might one bury its head because it is looking for something and so not see what is coming along yet another another because it is hiding, and refuses to engage with what it already knows might be coming?

      I suggest both reasons are present amongst probation folk right now - as is indicated by some of the remarks in some of the earlier comments.

      http://blog.consumer-knowledge.com/?p=585

      Delete
    4. Sorry, Jim. It was me (Rob). Trust me, I know what is at stake. I remember Tebbit's 'get on your bike' comment during the Thatcher yeats. A friend asked the question 'what if 2 million people DID get on their bikes and make for London'. If 9,000 were made redundant, there will be thousands of people who have commited decades of their lives to this work who will be forced out because they are expensive (ie old). There will be no handshakes or congratulations, just betrayal and loss. All so Eddie Stobart et al can 'have a go' and screw it up. Waste, waste, waste.

      Delete
    5. Rob,

      Sorry for my curt response - that is one of the dangers when using text - misunderstandings are possible and nuances missed.

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete