The Audit Trail

When the chickens come home to roost, the shit hits the fan, the enquiry convenes and the political obituaries are written, I absolutely agree with Joe Kuipers that there must be an unambiguous audit trail so that the blame for the TR omnishambles is pinned firmly where it belongs. That's certainly one of my aims in writing all this stuff and which the British Library has kindly indicated they will archive for posterity.

In the same vein, Joe's latest blog is concerned with putting down certain markers that will assist with the inevitable post mortem into this whole bloody mess:-  

The probation house was (and I use 'was' deliberately) a good stone house; OK, needing ongoing maintenance like any business, but built on solid ethical and principled foundations performing generally very well with limited and diminishing resources. It was a house worth defending, as opposed to those built of straw and sticks. So, what did we do in probation, in our solidly built house? Did we open the door, invite the wolf in, as we now watch the new structures being constructed out of the sticks and straw?

This is not to be a long blog, and as I have said previously, I have little new to add. It is important though that (in the language of audit) we create an audit trail of the whole TR processes, and I hope that my scribblings over the last two years will make some contribution to understanding what has actually happened in addition to those comments by other writers, as the plans potentially unravel. I have always said openly that the TR changes are a mistake, fundamentally flawed by splitting the offender groups by risk, a fallacious premise that probation has been failing and a false prediction that we could not work with the under 12 months group.

My concern is now for our staff in the throws and turbulence of moving and changing roles and functions. To this end we in our Trust are behaving properly and complying with mandatory contract variations (rather than volunteering with the implementation of TR). Whatever NOMS have said about staff going to similar jobs, in my view this is simply not the case. Can it really be argued that working in either the CRC or NPS environments is the same as the current probation environment? But job equivalence in the new structures has had to be the formal position as it created the basis for the whole staff transfer scheme.  I argued from the start that all posts in the new structures should have been filled through normal recruitment means, on the basis of qualifications, skills and competence, but when I proposed that in an early forum with NOMS it was rejected on the basis that it would in effect scupper the TR plans by creating impossible and unattainable recruitment processes within the timescale (the election timescale). Let's see if this forms part of the possible judicial review - the assignment processes and the basis of the staff transfers? 

So, how as it that the wolf got in so easily? To be fair, the doors were not flung open at the outset by probation leaders. The wolf sat outside for a bit (not for long) before intimidating the little pigs inside not to cry out. Those leaders who squealed (or cried foul) at the beginning were quickly silenced, which is when all the 'gagging' questions emerged. Then as the period of general leadership acquiescence took hold the NOMS strategy of making the senior appointments to the NPS and CRCs commenced - the natural thing to do really. Once in new roles in waiting the leadership was captured. But the capture was not entirely easy - a number of initially somewhat unwilling leaders were enticed to make their moves (I cannot go into details, but I do know this to be the case - both the people and the enticements / 'seductions'). Why were so many unwilling? Well, obvious really. They did not believe in TR. Having made the move they are now trying to make the best of it - and that must be right. What was not right though was the ease with which probation was given away, and in this respect my main criticism must be levelled at Trust Boards which I can only describe as generally supine. Even now Trust Board members await news of their £275 per day CRC possible roles when I am aware that many of them just do not believe in the new arrangements. Now I know that people need jobs, have bills to pay and futures to consider, but surely a bit more questioning from probation leadership coupled with stronger backbone and the occasional 'no' in the face of some pretty unreasonable demands would not have gone amiss? 

My last blog raised a number of issues that potential bidders might need to consider before they jump in with both feet and become the new occupiers of straw and stick houses. In sheep's clothing? Noses in scant troughs? And, I do think that some potential bidders have and are having second thoughts - for some larger businesses probation can become a 'loss leaders' as an entry point to the more lucrative prison business, but smaller organisations will not be able to stand a loss, or the delays in getting their share of the PbR? 

Some new information has come my way, which I have to speak of cautiously. In the same way that probation leaders were encouraged to move into the new structures I understand (from a reliable source) that potential providers are being 'encouraged' and 'bolstered' to stay in play. This includes especially potential primes. In addition, there must be a big question about the reliability of staff protections once delivery becomes more fragmented by a variety of employers in a more complex set of supply chains. Whilst national agreements look set to be in place for the short term how will employers create what will be necessary savings in the future without challenging labour costs - workforce costs in a people business are always high? Time will tell, but time also allows those responsible for designing and being party to implementing this mistake to move on (and often upwards) and tell a new story if it goes wrong. Remember, history is written by the victors - and I have to admit I have failed to make a dent in the march of TR 'progress'.

Will this blog make a difference? No. Does it make me feel better? No. Why do it? Some things just have to be done. How do I feel? In general very well. About probation? Mainly sad. But remember there is a plan 'B' - bringing together again the straw and stick houses of the NPS and CRCs into one sensible building. I have written about this previously.