Runners and Riders

We were told yesterday in a typically-upbeat MoJ press release that were only 35 bidders wanting to go head-to-head next year to win a share of 'coveted' rehabilitation contracts across England and Wales.

Who are Chris Grayling's spin doctor's trying to kid using language like 'coveted'? Seeing as there's only 21 prime contracts, I don't call 35 bidders demonstrating a huge amount of interest in the whole omnishambles and it will be interesting to see just how many of the 35 runners drop out of the race before the winning post is even in sight.

I notice that a keen contributor to this blog has had a stab at compiling a list of the likely suspects, using a number of public information sources, nouse and revisions submitted by other readers. It would indeed be helpful to try and flush the blighters out at an early stage so that we can closely scrutinise their track records, together with what ever relevant experience they intend bringing to the rehabilitation party. 

Here's a first stab then at trying to compile a list of the 35 contenders for the 21 prime contracts. It's highly likely to be inaccurate and incomplete (I seem to have too many mutuals), so please feel free to suggest amendments, groupings, fancy trading names, etc etc:- 

1. Working Links
2. Interserve
3. Ingeus
4. G4S
5. Seetec
6. Employment and Skills Group 
7. Serco
8. EOS
9. Pertemps People Development Groups 
10. Newcastle College
11. The Rehab Group
12. Prospect Services 
13. Avanta 
14. Maximus
15. Sodexho
16. Capita
17. A4E
18. Homegroup
19. Atos
20. Mitie
21. Durham Tees Valley Mutual 
22. Kent, Surrey Sussex A4E mutual
23. Shaw Trust 
24. Geo/Delta York, Humberside, Lincolnshire mutual
25. Manchester Mutual
26. Innovo Lancashire, Cumbria, Manchester College Mutual 
27. West Yorkshire, Prospects mutual
28. Leicestershire, Stonham mutual
29. West Mercia, Warkwickshire, Stonham mutual
30. Merseyside mutual
31. Steria
32. St Giles
33. Nacro
34. Carillion
35. Babcock
36. Veolia
37. CRI - Crime Reduction Initiative

This is what shadow justice minister Jenny Chapman MP has to say on the Left Foot Forward website when asking:-

Would you hand supervision of offenders to companies with no experience of providing probation services?

Supervision of the majority of offenders in the community will be handed over to companies with no experience of providing probation services, some of which are themselves currently subject to criminal investigation for fraud.

 Probation reform needs to be piloted so that mistakes can be put right. But there has been no piloting, no evaluation and no effort to check if this actually works, how well it works, or how it could work better. Instead the justice secretary has given us a personal assurance that he just ‘believes’ this is the right way to go. 

Although the government insists that companies will be paid only for what works, the majority of the cost will be paid up front regardless of performance. The government still do not know how expensive the new arrangements will be. The Ministry of Justice is about to sign the tax payer up to contracts worth 450 million lasting seven to 10 years without trialling the new arrangements. This isn’t just irresponsible, it’s downright risky.

Reoffending rates in this country are too high, with 46 per cent of criminals reoffending after release; but those supervised by Probation officers have a much lower chance of reoffending. Probation is a tough job that prevents crime and protects the public.

The justice secretary assures the public that only low and medium risk offenders will be supervised by the new providers. What he knows but doesn’t say is that low and medium risk offenders include those who have committed burglary, violence against the person, sexual assault, domestic violence and more. This is a high risk strategy that the government’s own assessment predicts will result in a drop in performance.

The plans will see the service broken up. When risk quickly escalates the offender will have to be passed between providers. This creates unnecessary bureaucracy, delay and confusion at exactly the moment when an offender poses the highest risk of harm.

The secretary of state wants to complete the sale of Probation services by May 2015. He knows no new government would contemplate pursuing such a dangerous initiative.

This is not an informed practical deadline, but a political cut-off point. His timetable has been described by an ex-chief inspector of prisons as ‘bearing no relation to practical reality’, while the chairs of at least three Probation Trust Boards have written to the secretary of state individually to warn him that he must slow down or risk serious public protection failures.

Those implementing the reforms do not ‘just believe’.

The House of Lords voted to stop the justice’s secretary half-baked plans, and Labour MPs want to do the same when the Offender Rehabilitation Bill reaches committee stage today.

With proper piloting and a realistic timetable, in collaboration with experienced practitioners, we could devise a new probation system that would supervise all offenders well and cut crime as well as costs. The government is wrong to miss that opportunity.

It's also fascinating to hear that the government's u-turn on a u-turn in relation to plain cigarette packaging is because of a need to be guided by 'evidence-based research'. But the same logic does not apply to putting the public at risk with the TR omnishambles.

Meanwhile I notice tailgunner has helpfully provided another transmission over on the Napo forum pages:-

The first thing to say is that Napo advice is NOT to not return EoI letters. Last week, Napo advised to wait for further advice which was issued yesterday - to be found elsewhere. In essence, the advice is to return the letters but at the same time a). Register a grievance on the basis that you're being asked to engage with a process that is not agreed in the NNC and which doesn't provide you with sufficient information to make an informed decision. And then b). Return said letter with a covering note that says it's done under duress - that you don't agree or accept the process and reserve your right to return to the matter in other fora. This is a bit like agreeing to an unacceptable variation to contract because you want to retain your job, but making it clear that you don't really agree with it and may take further action is respect of its unreasonableness. For automatic assignees, the advice is similar, if you don't like it, ask the basis on which the assignment has been made, consider a grievance, write explaining that you do not agree with the process and consider an appeal on the grounds provided.

Let's be honest, this is all aimed at slowing the process down and hopefully de-railing it. This may cause friction between staff and their employers, but let us all remember that we are being forced into this position by somebody up there who is mis-using the power at his disposal. So remember at whose doorstep responsibility for all this grief lies.

UNISON has advised its members essentially to do b) but not a). Nothing wrong with having slightly different tactics. The direction of travel is the same. To oppose and seek to scupper the whacky TR plan.

It would seem that at the Napo NEC yesterday there was firm resolve to continue the fight. It isn't possible to report the discussions in detail since walls have ears and websites have eyes on them - some perhaps to be found in Petty France. There might not be fighting on the beaches, but there will be stiff resistance in the streets of London, including PF, and right across the land. And why not? Probation has a proud history stretching back over more than a century. It has quietly and effectively been rehabilitating generations of individuals who have, through their offending, excluded themselves from law abiding communities. We have engineered reintegration, reduced exclusion and reduced re-offending. TR threatens the continuity of this mission. As such it both poses a risk to public protection as well as the very existence of a high performing public service.

It is to be hoped that WingCo G might one day be successfully re-integrated into the community. Sometimes individuals present particularly entrenched patterns of anti-social behaviour. The thing about Probation is that it never gives up on individuals however heinous their offending.   

Finally, I'm grateful for a reader pointing me in the direction of this cartoon that shows even the Americans are beginning to question what's happening.