Bidders - 5 Reasons To Say No!

I don't know what other people think, but if the comments on this blog over the last few days are anything to go by, there has been a definite mood change as more and more probation staff at last wake up to the stark realities of this TR omnishambles.

I've been genuinely shocked by the degree of ignorance and complacency, despite a thorough airing of the issues over many months, about what is in store for staff transferring to both NPS and CRC. It really has to be a case of 'better late than never' but trying to stop this whole sorry mess now is quite an uphill struggle. Realistically the only way is to seriously put the wind up as many potential bidders as possible, so in that vein and to kick things off, here are some reasons to give the whole thing a miss and it's specifically directed at the likes of Sodexo, Capita and Interserve.

1.You will be employing an army of subversives

You probably don't know much about probation staff, particularly probation officers and probation services officers, but they are a canny, tenacious and principled bunch and make no mistake, they're angry! Just a casual glance through the comments section of this blog or the Napo Forum pages should suffice in obtaining the picture. 

Apparently Grayling has instructed or 'imposed' on probation trusts an 8 week 'practice' of TR operating procedures from 1st April 2014. I'm sure a strategy of non co operation could be devised by someone in the know in probation. Apparently the stuff sent out by MOJ/NOMS is laughable, compromises public safety, duplicated processes, hinders joined up communication and working and undermines service users involvement etc etc. NAPO should insist that this 'practice run' should follow the TR operating procedures to the letter, immediate split working, transfer of cases between NPS and CRC, admin split, use of new forms etc. 

If probation staff/trusts try to mitigate the obvious flaws in TR operating model then it's not a real and valid practice, and is a pointless exercise, unless cynically Grayling is not bothered about the 8 week 'practice period' it's just so he can say that he has done it. Use this blog, napo blog, tweeter and Facebook to highlight and shame any trust which is seeking to tinker with the practice period to make it look good (WHISTLE BLOW SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR IN THE PRESS). When the going gets tough, the tough get going - Grayling not playing by Queensbury rules so fight fire with fire.

They are not going to roll-over and meekly go along with this shit. By the time they reach your employ, they will largely be bereft of their former probation ideology and ethos because they know full well they will fall victim to the first restructuring that comes along. They will not be assisting with smoothing out any teething troubles, will work rigidly to job descriptions and be more than willing to whistle blow at the first opportunity.

Back to Dan Shaw's File on 4 programme and we have a fairly clear picture from the non-answer by Phil Andrew (Working Links):

Shaw - will you keep the probation staff in place, the experience that they bring?

Andrew - the aim that we have is to pretty much take the organisation on as it is and then look at it over a period of a year or so. If we're bringing in probation in a particular region, into a national company, there are synergies to be had there, particularly from a back office perspective...

Shaw - ... that means cutting staff doesn't it?

Andrew - ... that means cutting costs, doing things more effectively... 

Shaw - ... which inevitably means fewer staff?

Andrew - ... it may mean fewer staff, at the end of the day our focus is to make a social difference by reducing reoffending we create savings for the taxpayer and if we make a small return, and it will be a very small return on top of that, then that's entirely appropriate, but its not our primary objective.

So there's a bidder with a clear one year shelf-life for probation staff.

Richard Johnson (ex-Serco Welfare to Work) spoke of the "winner's curse", where the contract winner has offered to do the job at the lowest price, then has to cut corners to achieve results - and in working with offenders that will put the public at significant risk. The obvious corner to cut at this stage must surely be the expensive PO grade staff in the CRC?

2. You know zilch about the work

Because this will undoubtedly be a new venture for you, you will have to rely initially on the expertise of highly experienced probation staff. Some will be enormously flattered at the offer of promotion, increased salary and a company car but, as we all know, within two years they will all be dispensed with when they've imparted all their vast knowledge and experience. You will then be left with an increasingly in-house-recruited and trained workforce and you will think that will be sufficient to service the contract effectively. You will be disabused of this notion in short order because this work is highly complex, clients are not widgets and the MoJ have devised a bureaucratic nightmare. 
   
3. It will seriously damage your reputation

Your company's reputation is important to you and your shareholders, but it will take a severe bashing the first time one of the low or medium risk people you are supervising goes out and murders one or two people with an axe. You will have to hope that they have been seen regularly and that the computer record is up to date. You will have to be prepared to explain to an angry press, public and Minister why you didn't know they collected axes for a hobby and 'didn't like people looking at them funny'.

When you've culled most of the expensive probation staff and replaced them with the low-paid and poorly trained, you will have to explain why they've been found to be sleeping with clients and searching the computer database for their mates. None of this will look good on the front page of the Daily Mail and you will not be particularly assisted by the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act:-

'It will remain the case that fuller disclosure of cautions and convictions will continue to apply to a range of sensitive occupations and activities' 

- but NOT THE CRCS! Take a look at the Target Operating Model and it's clear that, unlike in Probation now, CRC applicants will be covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act! Better still, with the changes announced to the act now being introduced an applicant will be legally entitled to conceal a conviction for an offence attracting a community order just 1 year after the order expires. Looks like Grayling wants to be certain that there's a wider pool of 'old lags' for the CRCs to call on, never mind the risk they could pose to vulnerable clients!
                    
4. It won't work

Clients are not widgets and cannot be processed as such. There isn't a day that goes by that doesn't see the government making the process of rehabilitation that much more difficult for probation clients. Many have serious health problems, but Atos assessments pronounce them fit for work. A lot lead chaotic lives due to mental health issues or drug and alcohol dependency and often miss appointments. They get sanctioned by Job Centre Plus and have no money. They become homeless quickly due to rent arrears brought on by the bedroom tax or any number of other new taxes being dreamt up by Chris Grayling.

Imprisonment will no longer be a way of starting afresh with a clean slate because there will be that £600 bill to pay towards the cost of the court hearing and only the much-lauded £46 with which to make a down payment. 

Anyone convicted of a crime will be required to pay a charge of up to £600 under Government plans to force offenders to contribute towards the cost of running the country’s courts. Convicted criminals will be forced to pay the levy, even if they plead guilty to the offence, the Justice Secretary will announce this week.

Chris Grayling hopes the proposals will raise up to £80 million per year to cover a portion of the cost of running criminal trials in England and Wales. Currently, offenders are not charged for the cost of administering their case when they are convicted of a crime. In some cases, judges can require criminals to pay fines, and compensation to victims, as well as to make a contribution towards the costs of the prosecution lawyers in the case.

They are not going to be happy bunnies, the under 12 month people, because they've been round the system a few times and are used to coming out with no interference from authority. They are going to kick-off big style at 12 month supervision, drug testing and having to wear a tag. They are not just going to be belligerent, they will not co-operate, will have to be breached and some will undoubtedly be threatening and violent towards staff they don't know and who they find out work for a private company. This from the Financial Times:-

Persistent death threats against staff who decide whether sick and disabled people are eligible for benefits have forced the private company employing them to seek an early exit from a £500m government contract. With opposition Labour MPs also stepping up criticism, Atos Healthcare said the political environment had become untenable and that it was no longer fair to employees to leave them vulnerable to attack.

“It is becoming incredibly difficult for our staff; it’s pretty unpleasant,” people close to the company said. About 163 incidents of the public assaulting or abusing staff were recorded each month last year, Atos said. At protests outside 45 Atos offices this week, names of individual doctors were chanted, while many of the 2,000 staff employed to carry out the work had received death threats both in person or on Facebook and Twitter, as well as bullying at the company’s assessment centres. Examples on Facebook include: “murdering scumbags . . . won’t be smiling when we come to hang you bastards”. Another says: “Know anyone who works for Atos? Kill them.”

5. You won't make any money

The whole point about bidding for this poisoned chalice is to make money. You can't because you won't be able to deliver on the Payment by Results element and the Fee For Service will depend on cutting costs. Not for you will be all this bollocks about 'co-locating' with NPS and having to pay those ridiculously high MoJ rents, but that just increases the bureaucratic nightmare you have to cope with in connection with the NPS interface. The MoJ computer systems are shite - ask any probation officer - and there will be costs associated in developing your own. 

The MoJ's own risk register puts TR in the highest category of failure. Their track record on contracting for court interpreters, court administration, IT delivery, electronic tagging, Unpaid Work, etc has been a disaster. What makes you think TR will be a success?     

You have to ask yourself - is all this really worth the hassle?