News is coming in from all parts of the country that the TR omnishambles mobilsation plan is, well, all going to plan:-
TR is a two tier system. We know it can't work, and evidence is already emerging within the first week of operating the systems in out Trust that it's not just about refining the processes given, but that the processes won't work in any way. The PPO issue is a very interesting one, as all PPO staff in our Trust were sifted to CRC.
So, NPS will have all MAPPA, most PPOs, large number of IOMs, High Risk, ALL reports (every single existing one, plus some new ones especially for TR), all Court and enforcement work, risk escalation decisions and takeovers, all prison secondments and all YOS secondments, public interest cases, approved premises. Clearly it isn't going to work. It's madness. CRC are left with interventions (UPW, Programmes and Skills4Work), low and medium risk cases and head office and back office functions.
In our Trust the operational CRC functions have already been pared to the bone. It's only the 'back office', non frontline services which our Trust has sought to protect. So, although I'm not looking forward to TR and don't think it could work, or will happen as the govt want it to, I will certainly not be mourning the end of my Trust, and to be honest I don't want their head office led enterprise (sorry 'mutual') to win the contract for our CPA - an existing outsourcer would protect the frontline better. And I think that will be the obituary for the Trusts - "should have thought about services, could have done better".
However, unlike others on this blog, I am full of admiration for the SPOs in my office. They are in an invidious situation and doing exceptionally in such difficult circumstances. There is little wrong with the front line, only that we have to work with terrible systems - OASys & NDelius - the systems that made us so inefficient, and remember the creation of these came from the same people who lead our Trusts.
***********
The Chief Constable was off on a right one last week when I informed her of our new 'working practices' and the fact that T4's will now be seen as/when, with her staff (Police) now having to pick up the majority of appointments. Suffice to say that her view of both TR and our Trust is very much jaundiced. Still, she cannot say she was not warned.
********
I've had a day from hell at the other end of the justice sausage machine. Many, many years a PO, now allocated CRC because apparently that was how it panned out on 11 Nov. This week seems to be the start of some unofficial trial of the split as I get handed case after case sentenced from court based upon a range of reports written by nps-allocated staff. I am sitting here on the commute home heartbroken and shocked at the appalling quality of those reports. Atrocious grammar, spelling mistakes galore, judgemental opinion, assumption and condemnation. Everything I was taught not to do when writing a report. And they are a mix of PO and PSO - this aint no purge on any grade.
Without fail the cases seem to all have received what I would regard as a requirement too many (5 in one case) or Orders far longer than I would have suggested.
I hadn't realised how dire things had become. Why are the courts accepting such poor quality documents? How has it become so bad? Where did all the gatekeepers go?
*************
Senior managers destined for the NPS are making decisions about the CRC-why? The staff list for the CRC is full of so-called back office staff with frontline workers as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the NPS is mainly made up of practitioners. Do bidders know they will inherit a load of IT staff and office managers-that will supervise them a lot of offenders?
As a team manager with 35 years plus in the service I was automatically assigned to the CRC-no one has asked me what I want, the decision has nothing to do with my working record (I have managed every type of Probation team other than an AP) and selecting people for compulsory redundancy has a greater element of fairness to it than selecting people on the basis of what they were doing on a retrospective date.
I am amazed that the whole premise on what sifting has been based, along with automatic assignment has not been challenged legally. I am looking for another job and if successful my resignation letter will cite TR and the impact of sifting as the reason. We need to get mileage into this, in other walks of life it could be construed as constructive dismissal. If everyone who leaves the service as a result of TR gives this as the reason in their resignation letter you are registering your grievance for the future and making it a public record. Send copies to the Chair of your Board (whether defunct or not) and Grayling.
***********
At the moment I feel exhausted, drained and to he honest destroyed by this job. As a CRC Officer, I'm being allocated more cases than I know what to do with, yet all my time is taken up with my NPS caseload and PSR's. I can barely face going into the office, I feel physically sick every morning, I'm not sleeping and am suffering from excruciating headaches. I don't feel well enough to be in work, but I' m too scared to see my GP. Being nowhere near retirement age VER is not an option. If I see my GP and am signed off will this be held against me by my future private sector employers? If there's a chance of moving into NPS, will a previous GP note go against me? All I can do is haul myself into work every day and pray it gets better.
************
Won't be long now before someone is killed or seriously hurt as a result of this TR bullshit. The momentum is building. It will most likely, in my humble opinion, be the (ex-) partner, or a probation staff member, or a prison officer. It will be at a time when anger and emotion and fear are funnelled into an explosive response to the wrong question, the wrong facial expression. I was told I'm a fucking cunt today... Duty call, no delius because of a server failure, no managers in the building (TR training event). No more team meetings/briefings means no shared information. TR is the final nail in that coffin. Nothing shared, commercially sensitive, what price humanity?
***********
Got into work at 8.50am. Saw 12 cases today - 5 newly allocated inductions (3 of which I wasn't even aware of until they arrived because newly devised system didn't allow for notification of sentences out of area), 6 existing cases who I had to see to break the TR transfer news to, and 1 duty call. Also had to squeeeeze in a hurried oasys for an emergency transfer, complete a written witness statement regarding a police investigation, deal with an inbox of 75 overnight emails (mainly crap), wrestle with delius to try & input what had happened that day - plus I spent 45 mins of my lunch hour with IT support trying to locate an oasys that it turns out never existed. Got home at 7.45pm, fell asleep within minutes. Just woke up after dreaming about work. Haven't seen or exchanged a single word with partner this evening - I'm just about to tiptoe into the box room so I don't wake them.
TR has fucked up everything, even the simple existing and very basic allocation of cases, because some daft *#%$ has decided they have to redesign everything to meet the TR brand. "Fit for purpose" was one of those bullshit made up phrases of the 90's used to excuse poorly designed, expensive packages. Then we had "it'll do" solution-focused ideas. Now we seem to have "make it work regardless, stupid".
TR is just crass stupidity. Its been an oft- used analogy, the emperor is bollock naked yet everyone is fawning over the platinum threads in the finest golden weave. Meantime the charlatans, the snake oil salesmen and the corrupt are filling their pockets. Those who should have raised the alarm, i.e. The Trusts, have been guilty of dereliction of duty.
Time for bed said Zebedee.
This is what I don't get. Any PO assigned to CRC have effectively had their qualification stripped from them. Nothing seems to have been mentioned about this fact. Surely there must be some breach of employment law to send individuals into new job, one where they are no longer able to do the tasks they are qualified for . To top it off this decision was made one one day in each officers career so does not reflect experience, training or competence. Now i know for constructive dismissal you have to resign june1st but youd have to be 100% sure you had a case. Not sure this fits with con dis but there must be some law to say you cant just be sent to new job which does not resemble qualification.
ReplyDeleteI am the middle manager Jim quotes above and no,I don't get it either.As a union rep I know that constructive dismissal is difficult to prove and I am positive that the Min of J have had some slick employment lawyer who has said that what has happened is all legal and above board. The impact,however,of dividing the workforce on the basis of what they were doing on a retrospective date strikes me as contrary to what the public sector is about. When I think about the care I have taken with HR staff over appointments in the past and how this has been just ditched as something inconvenient and old-fashioned. The way in which this split has been done will haunt the service for years and ,I suspect,come back to trip up some Chairs of Boards and Chiefs for not exercising due dilligence with regard to their staff. As someone auto assigned I was not even given the right to pursue a grievance!
DeleteSo CRC bound staff -start looking elsewhere for employment.Someone ,somewhere will appreciate your skills,even if Grayling and his minions do not. The ability to write good reports (re-discover it if Oasys has killed that one off),the ability to see patterns in behaviour and draw conclusions, the fact that you can stand up to people others shy away from -all this can be taken elsewhere and put to good use. If you do succeed and get another job let all know why you have left. Good luck eveyone.
Perhaps NAPO HQ might let us know what the legal advice is regarding the legality of the way in which the split has been done so we can make our own minds up. Given that we seem to be left on our own to deal with these battles it would help to know what the ground looks like in terms of employment law. Perhaps Joanna Hughes' legal contacts might have a view?Just a thought................
You have an interesting take on this constructive dismissal line it is worth at least looking in to. Where are the unions in all of this...? Surely, they should have thought of this when this TR fiasco first started?!&*^ Unions use Thompsons solicitors, so why can’t NAPO or Unison approach Thompsons? It shouldn’t have to be union members that think of these things!? I’m cynical and just guessing but think that the Unions DO KNOW about legal avenues we could explore but they are putting self interest and personal gain before the needs of members......
DeleteIt is interesting to me that a while back it was being said in the comments section of this blog something along the lines of 'the unions have agreed the split and staff allocation therefore you have no grounds for constructive dismissal'.
DeleteThen the unions came out and clarified that they have not agreed the split or the staff allocation, and suddenly the voluntary redundancy that was on offer (for senior managers) has been put on hold.
It seems to me that the MOJ have realised that they have made a huge mistake here and can't afford to pay out the enhanced redundancies to every PO allocated to CRC (which they would have to do - plus compensation for ignoring grievances - if constructive dismissal is upheld).
Just my thoughts on the matter anyway as I'm not qualified in employment law.
Following a request for clarification on this matter HR have advised me (and I paraphrase) as follows: on 1st June 2014 you will be moved from (XX)PT to CRC and your roles and responsibilities as outlined in your job description will remain the same.
As a PO moving to CRC it is clear that this is not true so why is it being said?
What do the unions know about this and if they don't know why don't they as we have been asking for help for long enough. Come on unions help us out here!
Just a suggestion, but many of you will have legal cover with insurance policies ( eg as an add on to contents/buildings insurance) that covers " employment issues" so if you have, you can request a consultation, once your insurance company confirms you are covered. A round about way I know but check your policy and take advice. Good Luck!
DeleteIt is worth looking at. However,one of the benefits we are supposed to get from paying our subs to NAPO is legal representation on employment matters,when in fact local branch officers (myself included) have been left to muddle through as best we can. NAPO advice along the lines of "well it is complicated" does not help. I know of no other situation where the workforce has been divided in such a way with the middle and long-term outcomes for each group,potentially,so radically different. Of course the HR advice is going to be that you take your JD with you because they want staff to do whatever is required and most JDs have that catch-all in them. My advice to members has been "download your JD now " because you may want to refer to it at a later stage when,in a CRC,your job no longer actually resembles what is currently written. This is particularly so for POs who I think will be given greater supervisory roles with PSOs and CAs whilst middle managers will be more like area managers,with a much wider span of responsibility. There will be no micro management ,but if anything goes wrong you will be on your own. Within the CRCs the cull will be with the middle managers first (after the CRC has found out how you do your job) because there will be no role for most of them as responsibility is pushed down the organisation. I am glad one of the contributors is cutting corners as a way of staying sane but it is not good practise because things will be missed and it leads to a hardening of the heart and burn out-neither a good option for an organisation.
DeleteHope everyone is looking for other jobs-NAPO won't encourage you to do that because they do not want to lose subs and CRC management won't because staff recruitment is costly.
Just an aside - you had to have a laugh at the Min of J spokesperson saying about the staff shortage that they would get staff on short term contracts to cope - clearly someone who has never recruited through agencies..................
Well spoken, and please dont feel hurt by the negative comments that NAPO have attracted of late, the reps have probably been more left out in the cold then anyone else.
DeleteWell said.
At least with the failures predicted from the first announcement of the system intended last May starting so soon, there is time - before the official start date to call a halt or to save faces, a suspension and properly test the systems, bit by bit in different ways and in different places (aka pilots) then real learning and implementation - if the pilots prove workable can start from robust systems to robust systems.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to resist saying - we told you so - but in fact we did!
I was part, of what was the much more straightforward amalgamation of the five Greater London Services into one, in April 2001, under a JFDI Chief Officer - with no operational probation experience - he had been a failed prison Governor according to the governor of the gaol I worked at, who refused co-operation. That shambles was still going on when I retired in 2003 and I experienced it from the Human Relations Department angle, where I rarely seemed to deal with the same person twice as my very reluctant medical retirement progressed. If that took over 2 years - then 35 into 21 + 1 and bidding and sales, and new ways of working might reasonably be expected to take - (I Haven't a clue).
I truly sympathise with all going through it, especially those who feel trapped, and do not feel able to simply resign, which I am almost certain would have been my stance, but then I hold a CQSW (and resisted the DipSW because it does not allow trained probation officers to work as social workers, whereas bizarrely trained social workers are allowed to work as probation officers). I protested and campaigned about that until Helen Schofield, convinced me and others in a small group at a Napo AGM - fringe meeting - that further protest was pointless,and that with the DipPS and we had got as much as we were likely to achieve.
I read of people putting great hope in the Labour Party, but because of their failure to recognise probation work as a branch of social work in 1998 and because of their deceit in 1997 over NOT reversing the earlier privatisations they said they would, I do not trust them. I even remember a face to face row, with the now very sadly departed Paul Goggins - over some aspect of the 2001 amalgamation in London - probably a good idea but badly executed.
I went to see my, then MP John Whittingdale - a Thatcherite (who treated me decently) at Westminster over some aspect of CJ policy, when Labour were in Government - will you oppose it, saith I, he retorted, of course we will, we are Her Majesties Loyal Opposition, that is what Oppositions do, and he was right, as the Blairites had already demonstrated and possibly will be true of the Milibandites, who beyond saying they will not sign any contracts, have made no commitments about probation and use of custody that I can tell.
The way to cut the spend on criminal justice is to cut the use of custody, and also on "one size fits all projects", Like Home Detention Curfews, which do have some thing to offer, if used after thorough assessment, with the continued use monitored for impact on families, with the possibility of (by court order) immediate termination/amendment etc.
But today the issues are not about the details of CJ policy, I applaud all who simply refuse to engage in the TR nonsense, especially managers who resign now from NPS or CRC positions and Trust Members who speak out - even now - about the problems they are witnessing.
Ok here's an idea. Having looked at the process charts now emerging from our trust, which may in turn come from the centre, can anyone identify any system that has got simpler and less beuraucratic? Answer is NO all have increased the levels of complexity. This simple and obvious point needs making alongside the many other reasons TR will fail & is one of the most ill thought out plans any govt anywhere has ever produced.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but today its announced that G4S has won its first central government contract since their ban was lifted.
ReplyDeleteNow theres been a weekend in between, and given not only the complexities of government contracts, but the shambolic execution of previous contracts that can't afford to be repeated by either government or G4S, then surely the time required to submit a bit, get considered, go through the detail of the contract, obtain legal advice, and sign the contract, must take longer the 3 to 4 days?
It must therefore be that the government have been in discussions with G4S negotiating contracts whilst they were still banned?
I wonder if TR has been on the discussion agenda?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/10768641/G4S-wins-first-central-Government-contract-since-tagging-scandal.html
G4S has won its first central Government contract since the prisoner tagging scandal saw the group vilified by ministers – though the news was overshadowed by a profits downgrade from Deutsche Bank.
DeleteThe embattled security group said it had won a three-year contract worth £4m to provide facilities management services at three sites for HM Revenue & Customs in Salford, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The contract win follows last week’s approval from the Cabinet Office of the steps G4S has taken to strengthen its governance in wake of the tagging debacle that effectively barred the group from fresh central Government work.
Last month G4S was forced to repay £109m to settle with the Ministry of Justice after overcharging for tagging offenders, some of whom were back in prison, overseas or dead.
While the HMRC work is worth only a small sum, G4S is waiting to hear whether it has succeeded in landing a contract running to tens of millions of pounds from the Department for Work and Pensions. It is associated with the Government’s Work Programme for helping the long-term unemployed back into the workplace.
G4S remains embroiled in a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the tagging scandal – alongside fellow contractor Serco – and on Tuesday saw its shares fall 3pc after analysts at Deutsche Bank said they saw no “significant hidden value” to “warrant its current valuation”.
The bank cut its earnings per share forecasts by 17pc for both this year and next to reflect lower than expected second-half earnings and higher-than-expected interest payments.
“While organic growth in developed markets should pick up, G4S is currently seeing material foreign currency headwinds and there is limited scope for M&A given the leveraged balance sheet,” the analysts said.
They added: “We see limited scope for large cost saving surprises. We trust the new management’s plans for the business can improve operating results. However, in our view the benefits are more than priced in.”
G4S shares fell 7.4 to 240.6p.
G4S’s new chief executive Ashley Almanza has cleared out the former management after a series of blunders culminated in the tagging fiasco but investors are anxious to see improvement after the company plunged £342m into the red last year.
And even if the SFO find evidence of wholesale fraud theres not much chance of a prosecution.
Deletehttp://www.natlawreview.com/article/uk-deferred-prosecution-agreements-code-practice-published
The Serious Fraud Office has issued a code of practice for deferred prosecution agreements, which are now available as an alternative to conviction for certain white-collar offences in the UK.
DeleteOn 24 February, deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) were introduced in the UK. They are available for a range of white-collar offences, including the main offences under the UK Bribery Act 2010. Prior to the introduction of DPAs, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published a code of practice for the use of DPAs (the Code).[1]
DPAs provide prosecutors with a discretionary power, subject to court approval, to defer prosecution if an offending organisation agrees to certain conditions. Typical conditions include the payment of financial penalties, costs, and compensation to victims; disgorgement of profits; or cooperating with future prosecutions and investigations. If the offending organisation does not adhere to the conditions, the prosecution may continue.
Why use a DPA?
DPAs allow organisations to avoid conviction. Defending criminal proceedings can be extremely costly and may cause significant reputational damage. Though still public, DPAs may not carry the same stigma as a criminal conviction.
In addition, in the EU, organisations convicted of a criminal offence cannot bid in tenders for public sector contracts. Under UK regulations, a company convicted of an offence involving corruption faces instantaneous and permanent debarment from public contracts. For some organisations, this alone may make DPAs an attractive option.
However, unlike leniency programmes elsewhere, DPAs do not provide immunity. Instead, DPAs impose the equivalent of criminal sanctions on offending organisations, and the Code states that financial penalties in a DPA “must provide for a discount equivalent to that which would be afforded to an early guilty plea”. There does, however, appear to be some leeway in the Code for prosecutors to recognise cooperation and assistance with an investigation. The prospect of a reduced financial penalty may therefore also incentivise some organisations to negotiate a DPA.
Just had a meeting with one of our directors who seemed interested in the fact that Mr grayling recently addressed senior management of the trust and made comment that "if he didn't privatize the service then
ReplyDeletehe would definitely regionalize it in order to save money" maybe he has got a plan b..
He may be right ! If there are not enough bidders I could see the CRC amalgamating into bigger "regions" to ensure the sale is achieved. That will really p**s off the localism agenda but will give him
Delete( Grayling) something to crow about.
You are having a laugh! He hasn't even got a Plan A. He's making it up as he goes along.
ReplyDeleteChris Grayling is now to be known as Animal. He's not just a muppet, he's a destructive muppet.
DeleteThere was mention in an earlier post about 'fit for purpose' being a nineties management slogan. I, too, thought its origins lay in modern management speak, but it's been around a long time. I have just read Shabby Tiger, a book published in 1934. I was surprised to come across the phrase 'fitness for purpose'. It initially referred to design and fitness for purpose in industry – and as the book says, 'Manchester was mad about it at the moment'. And there is current controversy about the use of water canons to control protesters. In the book there is a mass working class protest. Apart from the usual police batons, there's a description of water canon use by the the local fire brigade. 'It's the fire brigade – the bastards!' someone shouted and the rout began...he found himself lying in the road, gasping for breath, soaked to the skin'.
ReplyDeletewhilst i'm rolling with the changes and making the best out of a bad situation I've noticed in the past week I've drastically changed my working practice. My caseload has increased by 20 so i'm on 60 cases and still have more to come. All I can say is that everything is rushed - I even saw a client in reception today and just got him to sign his next apt, another client who's a pensioner and likes to use supervision as a 'chat' was hastily curtailed after 10 mins - i'm not a social worker and so long as i'm content his risk is stable then I've little interest to hear about his daily routine that has absolutely nothing to do with Probation. I find myself being more intolerant of the tweens who moan they cant get work but then find every excuse in the book to avoid engaging with ETE - if they cant be bothered why should I - so long as they're not going to re-offend then all I care about is that I can prove to auditors that I've referred them. I've also started putting loads of them on monthly and any that don't come in then I cold call and hope they answer so that I can re-engage them - the last thing I have time for is recall or breach. I don't like my job anymore, it's too much of a gamble, it's not forcing people to look at their offending behaviour but i'm hoping once I've got my full caseload I can start revisiting some of my reporting decisions and reel some of them back in.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that concerns me is some of my caseload do a 30 mile roundtrip for supervision which even in the car is not far off a 2 hour round trip - on public transport add another hour and the most common complaint I hear is the distance they have to travel - whilst it saves money having large Centres it forces people to struggle to comply - if you're on Programmes and work then some of mine report not getting home until pushing 10pm again because the Progs department is another 10 miles further up the road!!
To top it all we have a new management and I just hope and pray they are not to pernickety over accepting absences or offenders re-scheduling appointments because the last thing I need is a manager breathing down my neck - flexibility is the key in this brave new world. Despite everything tho I enjoy change, i'll do what I can to make it work because what else can we do?
Anonymous16 April 2014 18:23
DeleteIt sounds incredibly stressful, rushing around to do things with very time to do it. I feel that experience is now all very common across the service throughout different Trust. We are now in the danger zone were something is likely to happen very soon. I worry for myself and my colleagues. I went to see my manager today regarding a sex offender who turned up to report after being sentenced from Court yesterday. There was no paperwork, no information, no induction packs, nothing recorded in Delius regarding what was said to him, by whom, where he was living and with who. I was instructed to see him and I had to refuse. I’m sorry but I don’t get paid to see people without the proper risk assessment procedures and paperwork completed, as im not going to take responsibility in case after he sees me, does something and I get blamed for it. I ‘told’ my manager he needed to see the client. He did not. Instead (to my amazement) another officer volunteered to see the person which left me feeling flat. My manager has referred my refusal up to the ACE level. We will see what happens next.
In this job the counterballance to responsibiity is accountability. Please don't make yourself accountable for things your not responsable for. Let everyone think along those terms.
DeleteYou were absolutely right not to see a probationer without even the minimal of detail as to what the risks might be, to yourself and your colleagues in the first instance. What a dereliction of duty of your manager not to put the safety of staff first (or maybe they were, by not seeing the person themselves), ditto your colleague who 'very kindly agreed' to step into the breach (the times I have heard this recently, as if somehow my failure to step up to the mark makes me less of a team player). How have we moved so quickly from any failure to adhere to a fairly standard risk safety procedure becoming a potential disciplinary offence? I think we all expected from the start to be shafted by CG - but I don't think even I realized at the start of all this just how far we would be shafted by our managers. Apologies out there to anyone who thinks I'm generalising, but I'm still waiting to be proved wrong.
DeleteDeb
well...what you can do is do only what you can do, without resorting to working beyond and above your hours...........and certainly not beyond your ability to do the job without detriment of your health and sanity (not to mention family/social life). Record your workload and talk to your line manager (with witness) and record discussion. You have too many cases. If you do not take the action necessary to care for yourself, you will be unable to care for your service users....you will be ill and none of your service users will receive any service (no matter how limited) from you. Above all, remember that this is not your fault! Do not try to deal with the impossible hand you have been dealt. This abomination has nothing to do with you or your skills or your moral code or your professionalism............it is to do with Govt business and the perceived need/desire for egotistical fame by an individual with clear Personality Disorder/s!
ReplyDeleteI too am struggling, but suspect that I am rather more long in the tooth and take a pragmatic view.............do only what you can within the constraints/time/workload of this awful omnishambles, but most of all take care of yourself..............for the sake of you, your family/loved ones/service users and of course colleagues, who care about you.
If I were a company considering bidding for a CRC I would consider in great detail the way that NOMS and the MOJ meddle in everything , embrace bureaucratic systems and move the goalposts at every opportunity. They will demand minute detail of all that the CRC do .
ReplyDeleteJust a warning we already know in the Probation service how it works on a micro level - total unbridled chaos and weak management .
atm i'm not finding it stressful but I've noticed this afternoon I was really tired and had backache - something I don't suffer from. Considering this is only for me week one of the new working practices I wonder how I will cope in the next few weeks, all I know is I've got to morph into something that's alien to me but on the other hand something that my employers encourage - they only want us to target resources at those who's criminogenic needs dictate so. The problem I've got is learning to stagger cases throughout the month so they don't all come in the same week. I'm very relieved not to be doing anymore reports, I do feel as though a bit of a weight's been lifted and it's one less deadline hanging over my head. The next thing they need to look at is a shortformat oasys - far too labourious and timeconsuming in its current state especially for CRC cases - no point doing fabulous war and peace sentence plans if i'm not going to be seeing people and carry any of the objectives out!!
ReplyDeleteI'm more likely to be killed on the roads of Britain than by a punter at the moment. Been in shadow working since Monday and I've already driven more than 200 miles in the huge rural area I work in. I'm rushing around with a head full of stuff, not knowing where I'm going or who I have to see. Tireder than a tired thing in a tired place. Just completely exhausted and stressed to pieces.
ReplyDeleteQuote: "The staff list for the CRC is full of so-called back office staff with frontline workers as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the NPS is mainly made up of practitioners. Do bidders know they will inherit a load of IT staff and office managers-that will supervise them a lot of offenders?"
ReplyDeleteBidders should not assume that the staff list they are given by MoJ is accurate. These lists were very hurriedly compiled, barely checked, and I know for sure that the one from my own PT had plenty of mistakes and, crucially, lots of missing detail and context. For example where there are act-ups or secondments the lists bidders see might show who is in the substantive posts instead of the actual ones, but without actually highlighting this difference. So bidders might believe they are getting a particular staff mix, when actually they will get a significantly different staff mix. Let the bidder beware!
Dear Bidders
ReplyDeleteplease exercise due diligence and make sure, for the sake of your shareholders that you check the information that the Ministry of Justice has provided.It may not be accurate, or to use another word, truthful. For example the staff lists are known to be inaccurate so you may not have the staff you are expecting.What else may not be as it should be?
I'm pretty sure that one of the key learning points from Joe Kuipers' attendance at the recent bidders conference was that the MoJ is not duty bound to supply accurate information!
Delete