A Lucky Escape!

I haven't mentioned Sir Stephen Bubb of ACEVO for a while, but a casual glance at his blog confirms the guy continues to dine well, 
A little bleary this morning as I had dinner last night with Paul Streets of the Lloyds Bank Foundation. Eating at Roast, the marvellous restaurant in the Borough Market (which is a charity as well as the place to buy your organic and fresh produce!). Paul is doing a great job there and he's an ACEVO member obviously. He used to run Diabetes UK before joining the DH! He is now back in our sector where he should be.
whilst his organisation busies itself spending lots of MoJ money drumming-up bidders for our work. The following is an observation made by an attender at one of these events, representing a potential tier 2/3 bidder:- 

An Alice in Wonderland meeting
I recently went to a meeting as a Tier 2/3 provider on negotiation skills run by ACEVO, very exciting. So the meeting opens, lots of questions about fairly basic information about the process. Any answers? No, lots of “don’t know”, “we will raise that with the MOJ” etc etc, Took a long time to go through all the questions they could not answer.

PbR

Some interesting answers, summarised below

	Tier One	Paid Y/N		Tier Two\ Three	Paid Y/N
Achieve result	Y	Y	Achieve result	Y	Y
Achieve result	Y	Y	Achieve result	N	N
Achieve result	N	N	Achieve result	Y	N
Achieve result	N	N	Achieve result	N	N

Tier Two and Threes will only get paid if the Tier One achieves their outcomes. So as a Tier Two or Three you can achieve the agreed outcomes but not get paid! There was also an additional sting in the tail, Tier 2/3 providers results have to be “statistically significant!" Head they win, tails you lose.

Employment Issues

Interesting the employment model they were using in terms of Unit costs, the slide stated

Unit costs
Volume of Clients	1,000
Maximum case load for an adviser	100	therefore	10 advisers
Number of advisers per manager	10	therefore	1 manager

There was a further discussion on wages for advisers with the average figure being £20,000 per annum. When some providers discussed higher salaries they were told “higher salaries” were unlikely to gain contracts.

The day was a strange day of no answers and a total lack of understanding in terms of what the probation service does and who they deal with. From my perspective as a potential tier 2/3 provider, today was the end of our involvement in this process. It looks and feels like a shambles and my organisation will, on my recommendation, have nothing more to do with it.

They clearly feel they had a lucky escape. But don't worry all you other potential tier 2/3 bidders out there, for help is at hand! Lots more MoJ money is being spent on this new venture:-

Clinks Newsflash | TR Helpline goes live tomorrow!

Our Transforming Rehabilitation Helpline goes live at 10am tomorrow! The Helpline will support voluntary sector organisations who are thinking about, or working towards, a subcontract under the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme. Clinks, in collaboration with Russell-Cooke Solicitors, is opening the Helpline to provide information and advice about the subcontracting process and issues to consider when subcontracting. The Helpline will also be able to refer small and medium sized organisation entering contract negotiations for free legal advice with our partner legal firms. Details Open 10am – 4pm, Monday - Friday Telephone - 020 3637 0155 Email - TRHelpline@clinks.org Additional support The Helpline is part of the Clinks TR Legal Support Project, funded by the Ministry of Justice. Additional support from this project includes: GUIDANCE | Subcontracting: a guide to the legal implications Our guide to subcontracting under the TR programme covers areas such as entering negotiations, analysing risk, HR and TUPE, data protection, collaborative working, and disputes and termination. There is an introduction to TR and 10 modules which can be downloaded individually. Video introductions to these modules will be available towards the end of March. The guide is available here WORKSHOPS | Subcontracting: the legal implications These workshops are being run with our legal partners around the country in March. They aim to explain the legal implications of the Industry Standard Partnering Agreement (ISPA). Check the dates and locations and book your place here TRAINING | Negotiation skills, unit costing and impact measurement We are offering Negotiation skills training; an extension of the ACEVO programme which ran throughout February. The training will be run by ACEVO and Candour Collaborations. Negotiation skills training will be run alongside our TR Subcontracting workshops, which will be at the same venue in the morning. You can book for one or both sessions; lunch will be provided for anyone booking on both sessions. We will also be running a course on Unit Costings and Impact Measurement with ACEVO. Negotiation skills training for subcontracting | Manchester - Friday 14th March - 2pm – 4.30pm Unit Costing and Impact Measurement | London - Thursday 20th March - 10am - 4.30pm Negotiation skills training for subcontracting | London - Friday 21st March - 2pm – 4.30pm The training programmes are free, book your place here RESOURCE | stay up to date with TR And don't forget our dedicated Transforming Rehabilitation web page; regularly updated by our Policy Team here

  

It's A Nightmare Mr Brown

From personal correspondence:-

"Who'd have thought that we'd be reduced to lawyerspeak and statisticians and management gobbledegook as the formula for working with people.

Its a nightmare, Mr Brown. I cry myself to sleep, and wake up crying, and cry on the way to work, and cry into my coffee, and cry all the way home."


Transforming Rehabilitation Programme – Payment Mechanism Design Overview 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This overview document sets out how MoJ will pay for services that will be delivered 
under the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme and the rationale behind the chosen 
approach. 

1.2 The payment mechanism for services provided to the offender allocated to the provider 
is comprised of two elements: Fee For Service (FFS) and Payment by Results (PbR). 
The FFS is primarily paid for mandated activities that deliver the sentence of the court 
and licence conditions and includes Through the Gate (TTG) services and 
Rehabilitation Activity Requirements (RAR). PbR is paid for the achievement of 
statistically significant reductions in reoffending against the baseline historical level. 

1.3 The total available funding in any year, known as the Maximum Annual Payment 
(MAP), has been set on a Contract Package Area (CPA) basis for each year of the 
contract. Providers are required to bid a FFS for each year of the contract. The 
difference between the FFS bid and the MAP will form the basis of the amount available 
for PbR, relating to the quarterly cohorts and annual cohort that are established in that 
year. 

1.4 Key features of FFS are outlined below and further detail can be found in section 3 of 
this overview document: 

• FFS covers the delivery of sentence requirements and includes TTG and RAR. 
• Providers will bid against a predicted annual volume range, weighted for sentence type and, in the case of Unpaid Work, the length of the requirement. This is known as the Weighted Annual Volume (WAV). 
• Providers’ FFS bids are expected to include a ‘learning curve discount’ to drive continuous improvement. 
• The FFS for the predicted WAV will be an annual amount paid in twelve equal payments made monthly in arrears. 
• At the end of each contract year, the FFS paid on the predicted WAV is reconciled to the actual WAV recorded, with a retrospective payment or deduction applied if the actual WAV is shown to have been outside of a set tolerance range around the predicted WAV. 
• Service credits will be applied for failure to deliver the mandatory services to a specified time and quality, in line with the performance framework.

 

1.5 Key features of PbR are outlined below and further detail can be found in section 6 of 

this overview document: 

•  PbR will be paid based on a binary metric (the reoffending rate, i.e. the percentage of offenders in a cohort that reoffend) and a frequency metric (the frequency of reoffending, i.e. the number of reoffences per reoffender). 
• The offenders allocated to a provider will be grouped in quarterly cohorts for the binary metric. 
• Payments on the binary metric will be made only for achieving statistically significant reductions in reoffending, with deductions applied to the FFS for underperforming (i.e. increasing the rate of reoffending beyond a statistically significant point) and higher payments for further improvements in reducing the rate of reoffending. 
• Annual top-up payments will be available on the binary metric for statistically significant improvements against annualised targets.
• The offenders allocated to a provider will be grouped in annual cohorts for the frequency metric. 
• There is a “hurdle”, set at the binary reoffending baseline, which must be achieved in order for any payment to be made on the frequency metric. 
• Payment on the frequency metric will be made if there is any reduction in reoffending (provided the binary hurdle is also passed) and deductions will be applied for any increase in reoffending.
• There will be significant financial deductions to the FFS and/or a termination right for MoJ for large or repeated increases in reoffending rates. 

1.6 Providers may purchase services for offenders within their cohort from other providers. 

A rate card, using the prices stated in their bids, will govern the prices for these 

services. 

1.7 The NPS will purchase delivery of certain services from providers for offenders that the 

NPS manages. Payment will be made on a Fee for Use (FFU) basis. Prices for these 

services will be governed by a rate card. Prices for any elective services (i.e. those not 

already included on the rate card) will be agreed between the NPS and the provider. 

The same approach will be taken by commissioning bodies, such as other government 

departments, which also wish to purchase services from CRCs. 

London Unpaid Work

We all knew that the London Unpaid Work contract with Serco would be a trailblazer for TR and a flagship project for the MoJ. We also now know it's been a failure on many levels, not least in terms of delivering the savings hoped-for by the MoJ and the profits planned-for by Serco. They wanted a way out as soon as possible and it will now be rolled-up in the overall TR bidding process for London, which incidentally has only three bidders. 

Anyway, Napo have recently produced the following circular on the subject and I thought it would be a good idea to publish it along with the original Pat Waterman/Sarah Friday article referred to in order to refresh our memories:-
    

BR26-2014

sf/mp

To:

• Branch Chairs, Secretaries, Vice-Chairs & Convenors
• Family Court reps for info
• Officers & Staff for info

25^th February 2014

Dear Colleague,

Termination of Serco’s Community Payback (CP) contract in London

On the 6^th February The Secretary of State announced to Parliament that he intended to terminate Serco’s Community Payback London contract – originally due to run until the autumn of 2016 - by the end of 2014.  The 129 full time equivalent staff will transfer into the London CRC (Community Rehabilitation Company). The MoJ claim that this is so that London CP will fit in with the national Transforming Rehabilitation programme. It seems that the MoJ wanted to downplay the news of the end of the contract, as it was sneaked out in the footnote of a MoJ announcement.

Detailed arrangements for the transfer are still to be confirmed but we understand that this transfer will be protected by TUPE (The Transfer of Undertaking [Protection of Employment] Regulations), it is not a redundancy situation and the possible likely date for the transfer is November 2014.

This is a difficult and uncertain time for our members working on the Serco contact and we will be working with the Napo Greater London branch to ensure these members receive the best possible representation and to make sure that the move into the CRC goes smoothly. 

As this this the first section of ‘core’ probation work to be privatised what happens on this contract is of significant interest to all Napo members, particularly in light of the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda, and as the London CP contract is now coming to an end it is useful to reflect on Napo’s previous actions as regards this contract:

• In March 2013 Napo wrote to Michael Spurr following Chris Graylings statement to the Justice Select committee that the Serco contract has produced savings of 40% since its commencement. We asked for a breakdown of how this figure was arrived at, and for a costing of work carried out prior to the transfer on legal and consultancy advice and the time spent by NOMS and LPT staff in drawing up the bid.  Michael Spurr’s reply was that the 40% figure was a re-working of the often repeated MoJ claim that the contract was to  save  the tax payer £25 million (37%) over the four year contract, and that he could not reply to our questions re costing queries due to ‘commercial confidentiality’. 

• In the May/June 2013 edition of Napo News, Pat Waterman Greater London branch chair and I co-authored an article: ‘Lessons learnt from the part privatisation of London Community Payback’ in which we highlighted the scale of job losses. Pat wrote: “Over 300 LPT staff  were transferred to Serco on 30 October. However, no sooner was the ink dry on the trade union recognition agreement when Serco announced its plans to make 99 redundancies by way of a severance scheme”.  I wrote: “The scale of the job losses arising from the privatisation of London CP is one of the most devastating things about it, with nearly 200 jobs being cut from a pre-privatisation total of around 550 (including about 100 casuals)”.

In addition to the above job cuts in June 2013 Serco made a subsequent round of 10 redundancies – this time to managerial grades (senior and field managers).

• In November 2013 following work done locally and centrally, Napo contributed to a BBC2 Newsnight feature in which whistle-blowers told the programme of serious failings in the contract – that community service projects were not properly supervised and there were inaccuracies in reporting cases of offenders not attending such schemes. Tom Rendon, Napo National chair said "Whatever the quality of the bids, the cheapest would always win. Serco and London Probation we think came in the cheapest and now the cracks are really starting to show".

• In December 2013 Ian Lawrence, Napo General Secretary commented on the Serco decision to withdraw from the MoJ competition to be primary provider of probation services, due to the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into significant ‘anomalies’ in the billing practices under MoJ’s electronic monitoring contracts with G4S and Serco. Ian said: “that despite their clear transgressions, both companies may still be allowed to work with other potential suppliers to support the Governments ‘objective of achieving a diverse market’ and added that:” we ’will now be using this as further evidence to parliamentarians that both companies have proved themselves to be unfit for purpose in terms of their contracts within the justice sector”.

• In February this year Napo, along with sister unions UNISON and GMB, referred the UK Government to the ILO (International Labour Organisation - United Nations agency that is devoted to promoting internationally recognised human and labour rights) because the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation proposals will breach the ILO’s Forced Labour Convention by handing over the supervision of Community Payback to the private sector. The Convention expressly requires forced labour, carried out under a court order, to be supervised by the public sector and for those undertaking the labour not to be placed at the disposal of private companies. Ian Lawrence said: "The breach of article 24 of the ILO Forced Labour Convention is yet another example of the coalition government’s lack of  principles when it comes to outsourcing public sector contracts” adding: “we are calling for a halt to these disastrous plans and for the government to explain why it has breached the ILO Labour Convention which clearly states that Unpaid Work should be supervised by the public sector”.

Exposing the privateers

From the date of the announcement that it was the intention to outsource and actual commencement of the London Serco CP contract it took around three years, and just two years for it to conclude. The privatisation of London Community payback has been a scandalous waste of public money, has risked public safety and is in breach of an ILO convention. Let’s re-double our campaigning efforts against probation privatisation to ensure that the short lived Serco London CP contract is the beginning and end of the privatisation folly. 

Sarah Friday
Napo National Official 


Lessons from the part privatisation of London Community Payback

(Page 6 Napo News 248 May 2013)

Pat Waterman, explains the background 

Colleagues working in Community Payback (formerly Community Service, then Unpaid Work), had felt that they were a neglected part of London Probation Trust (LPT) long before the transfer to Serco last summer. Over 10 years ago, following the introduction of Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP), which was supposed to make the sentence a more meaningful experience for our clients, Community Service in London saw a significant reorganisation. Many new roles were created which remained even though ECP was eventually shelved. With hindsight the groundwork was already being done to split Community Payback into two sections: case management and client supervision.


‘Privatisation blight’

For the past six years the spectre of privatisation, has hung over Community Payback.
Previous attempts to outsource failed; the stumbling blocks being data security and pension provisions. But, while all this was going on, CP was left to rot to make it ripe for privatisation. The bidding process started in earnest in 2011. The unions were invited to numerous meetings with LPT and treated to presentations about the tendering process. We can only begin to guess at the amount of public money devoted to putting together LPT’s bid. Despite repeated requests we were never allowed to know the details of the bid. Commercial confidentiality was cited and there was no meaningful consultation. The announcement in July that the bid had been won by SERCO and LPT was of little surprise to anyone. What was a surprise was the fact that although LPT was to retain the case management function, it announced it would do so in accordance with the Serco model, which demanded that all 68 case administrators posts be ‘deleted’ and that the number of full time case managers be reduced. We were not told the rationale for this.

Working to protect members

The branch worked hard in partnership with Chivalry Road to protect the interests of those members staying in LPT and to ensure that the ‘window’ for Voluntary Redundancy (VR) was extended to enable members to make decisions without feeling under pressure. We made sure that anyone who had already started the PQF was removed from the process and that redeployment opportunities within LPT were ring-fenced for those at risk of redundancy. In the end the restructuring was achieved without compulsorily redundancies and over 300 LPT staff were transferred to SERCO. However, no sooner was the ink dry on the trade union recognition agreement than Serco announced its plans to make 99 redundancies.

Sarah Friday takes up the story

The scale of the job losses arising from the privatisation of London CP is one of the most devastating aspects, with nearly 200 jobs being cut from a pre-privatisation total of around 550 (including about 100 casuals). We were shocked by the speed and number of the redundancies, and complained vigourously – up to a senior Serco managerial level – but were unable to persuade them to reduce the numbers. We were however able to influence the redundancy process and to persuade Serco to push back the deadline for applications for VR, and to ensure they abided by their commitment to manage the redundancies according to the LPT redundancy procedure. Cuts and job losses By the end of the process, 89 of the 99 redundancies were achieved through VR.

As with any redundancy situation people take VR for a variety of reasons; but there was a great deal of demoralisation as staff saw their ‘old way of working’ being devalued. It remains to be seen if the contract can work successfully with such a reduced workforce. Serco claim it can because of new ways of working. Some of these are imaginative, but they could potentially be very problematic and Napo has warned Serco that they could find themselves short of staff. Only time will tell. 


Staff transferred to Serco are covered by TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection) regulations, but this is limited. Negotiations around the terms and conditions for those that transferred will no longer come under the remit of the Probation Service National Negotiating Council; instead all negotiations will take place locally through the JNCC. The necessity for compulsory redundancies could not be referred to the Joint Secretaries and the Probation Service job evaluation scheme does not apply to the new posts. Staff will no longer have the opportunity to study for PQF. Serco decided not to let their staff undertake the qualification because this training would have involved them working on a secondment with LPT, Serco’s competitor: and because putting staff through PQF would not benefit Serco.

Freedom of information

It is a scandal that when public sector work is outsourced the detail of the contracts are not available to the public. Napo wrote to Michael Spurr to express our concern at a statement made Chris Grayling, to the Justice Select committee in February when he said that there will be 40% savings from the London CP contract. We asked for a breakdown of how he arrived at this figure. How were the costs for LPT delivering CP measured? How much was saved through job cuts and office and workshop closures? How much was spent on redundancy payments? Were the costs of devising the process and drawing up the contract included? The response was couched in the language of ‘commercial confidentiality’, and so we are no further forward in finding out how much public money was wasted on this contract.

The main lesson to be learnt from this privatisation is that we need to make sure we have a strong membership base in those areas of the service under threat of privatisation. It is galling to hear LPT senior managers say at conferences that the unions did not present a problem in relation to privatisation going ahead. Unfortunately we were in a poor bargaining position in London CP as we didn’t have the membership. We need to make sure we are in a strong position to effectively represent members threatened with privatisation. So get out, organise and recruit!

Pat Waterman, Chair Greater London Napo
Sarah Friday, National Official

Omnishambles Update 37

The omnishambles that is TR rumbles on with the 'sifting' of staff between CRC and NPS supposedly now completed, bar appeals. It will come as no surprise that the whole process has been hugely demoralising and influenced many more colleagues to get out, with others determined to do the same at the earliest opportunity. 

Long-term relationships between officers and clients are being forcibly severed, sometimes at only a days notice, and under duress by management. But at least it's nearly done and some stability can return right? Errr no because it's all gone Pete Tong as this recent memo from HR and circulated to all staff in London makes abundantly clear:-

Message from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Senior HR Business Partner 

The sifting exercise in preparation for the move to the London CRC and NPS is now complete and we are working to consider and determine all appeals. 

At this juncture we are offering an opportunity for staff to express an interest in a transfer to the CRC.  This means that: 

1. If you have been allocated to the NPS and would like to move to the CRC or
2. If you have been allocated to the CRC and would like to move location.

You may respond to this email indicating that you wish to be considered for a transfer. 

The NPS is currently fully resourced.  Any vacancy which subsequently occurs, therefore, in NPS will be recruited to in the normal way via a competitive process. 

Below is a list of the job families and where the vacancies are.  Also included are LDUs where there are a greater number of posts than budget.  People in those boroughs in the specific roles will be given priority should they wish to move. 

If you would like to apply for a transfer please email xxxxxxxxxxxxxx stating where you are currently assigned and where you would like to transfer to.  Expressions of interest via email must be received by Friday, 14 March 2014 in order to be considered. 

Please note this is only open to permanent, substantive staff at the current time.  Resulting vacancies will be advertised shortly at which point agency/interim staff may apply. 

SPO: 

Vacancies:        BDH, NEW, TWR, ENF, CRO, LEW 

Surplus:        HAF, BAR, LAM, GRE 

PO: 

Vacancies:        BDH, NEW, RWF, HAC, TWR, ENF, HAR, CAI, KAR, LAM, MAS, HIL, HOU, CRO, LEW, EAL, HRW 

Surplus:        BEX, GRE, BAR, BRE, HAF, KCW 

PDO: 

Vacancies:        SOU, CRO, HIL, LAM, BRE, KCW, ENF, HAC, BDH 

LDU CO-ORDINATORS 

Vacancies:        BRE/BAR, RWF, KAR/WAN, HIL/HOU, HAC/TWR 

SCA: 

Vacancies:        CAI, CRO/BRO, SOU/LEW, MAS/LAM, KAR/WAN, HAC/TWR 

CA:                BDH, NEW, HAC, TWR, ENF, CAI, HAF, KCW, BAR, BRE, HIL, HOU, BRO, CRO, BEX, HRW 

Surplus:        HAF, LEW, SOU 

Receptionist: 

Vacancies:        CAI, EAL, GRE, HAF, HOU, KAR, KCW, LAM, LEW, SOU, TWR 

Key:

CAI                -        Camden & Islington 
CRO/BRO        -        Croydon/Bromley 
HAR/ENF        -        Haringey/Enfield 
GRE/BEX        -        Greenwich/Bexley 
SOU/LEW        -        Southwark/Lewisham 
NEW                -        Newham 
HAF/KCW        -        Hammersmith & Fulham/Kensington, Westminster & Chelsea

MAS/LAM        -        Merton & Sutton/Lambeth 
BRE/BAR        -        Brent/Barnet 
BDH        -        Barking, Dagenham & Havering 
RWF        -        Redbridge & Waltham Forest 
KAR/WAN        -        Kingston & Richmond/Wandsworth 
EAL/HRW        -        Ealing/Harrow 
HIL/HOU        -        Hillingdon/Hounslow 
HAC/TWR        -        Hackney/Tower Hamlets

There continues to be much painful discussion as to whether NPS or CRC is the 'better' or 'safer' option with opinions very sharply divided on the matter. In truth of course many are at last realising that its all an utter pile of shite that will be going very wrong in a whole host of ways very quickly. But not everyone appears gloomy about the future and I must say this blog I stumbled across by the 'award-winning' ACO Brandt down in Avon and Somerset fair took my breath away for its upbeat management view of the future CRC-style:-  

The answer for me overwhelmingly was that the CRC was the right route for me. I see the challenge of setting up a new company as exciting. The promised freedoms of less oversight with a focus on outcomes is welcome after years of process measurement targets. The CRC will exist as a company in its own right and will continue to do so after share sale, if in fact the shares are sold.

The chance to develop completely new ways of working, obtaining funding from other sources to prevent harm from ever happening is attractive. If we can put together programmes of work to better educate the young away from violence in all its forms so it becomes as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving it will save thousands from harm. We do have these skills in Probation, why should we wait to use them until after the offence has occurred?

I look forward to developing much stronger links with a whole range of community groups each of which can be built into an individualised plan for supporting and changing the people with whom we will be working. The CRC will need to build its own assurance models for ensuring that the groups are fit for purpose; and publicly support those who do offer the most effective support.

I welcome the chance for good staff to develop without the perception that the only route through the service is via Probation Officer training. I have had the privilege of working with a number of very skilled and able managers who have developed a career through alternative routes.

The CRC does not come without its own challenges. The majority of perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Abuse will be supervised by the CRC. The majority of serious further offences will come from the cases supervised by the CRC. The CRC will be held to account to a contract. The challenge for NOMS will be in how they write the contract and if they really do let go of the CRC. I look forward to seeing the first iteration of the contract and governance documents. I am quite happy with the concept of working to a contract. I do it already with my employer and nearly every aspect of our private lives is governed similarly; having a car serviced, having repair work done at home etc.

If after the allocation of cases and staff has been resolved the CRC finds itself with a too rich mix of staff it will have the option to seek further contracts to more fully utilise the skills of the staff.

For me the CRC is the place that I should be. I have heard other staff appraise their own situation with equal thought focusing on their work developing Public Protection work, integrated approaches to managing risk through MAPPA and for them the NPS is the right choice.

Both are very uncertain. Both will have their challenges and both will have their rewards. The least compelling argument I have heard is “I want to stay in probation”.

Without knowing which crap outsourcing company who knows fuck all about probation will in all probability end up running this CRC and giving them orders, it beats me how guys can write this bollocks and still sleep at night?  

Finally, these two comments from yesterday give further insight into what's going on:-

It may seem counter-intuitive that a probation officer would choose a CRC over NPS but it will make sense to those who have an eye open for redundancy terms. In the last few years Trusts have been offering voluntary redundancy to POs and so numbers have fallen. Therefore, I think it will be harder to secure redundancy in the NPS than CRCs. What we saw when SERCO took over in London was additional redundancies of about 100 even before the ink had dried on the Recognition Agreement. The Unions, as they noted at the time, were 'powerless' to resist this further round of job cuts. The same will surely occur with the CRCs and as they can offload voluntary redundancies onto the the government's expense sheet, what will hold them back from reducing their complement of POs, who may be looked up as not fit for purpose in the cheap and cheerful CRCs. Napo heralds the deal on continuity of service as though this will be some sort of deterrent to CRCs. Not a bit, all a business has to do is 'restructure' and the goalposts move.

*******************

Chaotic caseloads plus a chaotic system with no control being given to the CRCs. The national caseload reducing year on year since 2008. Police and Courts increasingly diverting low risk offenders to cautions and discharges. Fewer younger offenders coming through the Youth Justice System into Probation caseloads. Staff who have removed all good will and are up for a fight - it will only take a few of us to get bolshy and it will implode.If privateers cut too fast before they understand the first thing about this extremely complex 'business' - it will implode. Private companies would be mad to apply to have these chaotic contracts on their accounts. 

I heard that the one to one meetings between mutuals and MOJ are being hamstrung because the MOJ officials just look blankly when asked questions about the complex technicalities of Probation work because, putting it simply, they don't have any understanding of how multi-faceted and complex it is. People on multiple Orders, orders ending early or delayed by breaches, UALs, people popping up all over the country, short prison sentences that currently last a few days or weeks now taking years to complete or never ending because of the multiple breaches and recalls (why would a private company want those for God sake???). I could go on.

Why would any private enterprise want this work? I don't get it. Probation has been the filler in between the cracks ever since the start of the welfare state - it's chaotic by nature (especially the medium and low risk cases), it needs patience and agency stability. Once you lose control of the admin you are utterly, utterly lost amongst a caseload who would merrily run circles around you.

I have also heard many of our service users say that private companies can f*** off if they think they are going to make a profit from them. They are not in the mood to be picked over and are ready to f*** with anyone who doesn't show them respect - after all, they do know the system pretty well themselves!! It only works with their good will and that of the staff.

That's what the MOJ don't understand when trying to make rational contracts from this. Remember also, Probation offices don't have security guards - we work with service users, not to make profit from them. The private companies might decide that they need security once it all starts to kick off. The hassle usually comes from the chaotic medium risk cases, not the high risk who are generally compliant. When the panic alarms sound in a CRC interview room, do we respond? Look at Atos. Look at Serco in London. Look at G4S at HMP Oakwood. Look at your bottom line. It makes no sense.  

PS - I've just spotted this over on the Napo Forum website:-

My colleague and friend today attended the TR training and it was apparently made clear that participants were expected to assist in designing the 'new way'. An odd method of training, invite the participants, no sorry I mean force the participants (it is mandatory), then introduce the new tools to be used at Court and then expect the participants to fill in the gaps that were quite obviously missing in the training because the poor trainers didn't have the answers. In short I was pleased to hear the participants soon caught on to the fact that they were expected to be a part of designing the Grayling way and refused to assist in filling in the gaps for him.