Phase 1 (to August 2013) The implications of the split between the public sector and competed services for staff and for workload will be worked through on paper.
Phase 2 (August 2013 - March 2014) operational staff will be allocated to either the public sector probation service or the competed services through a matching and selection process. The competition will be advertised in August/September.
Phase 3 (April - October 2014) all staff are transferred to either the National Probation Service or the 'NewCo' - a government owned holding company. This will allow the new operating model to be tested.
Phase 4 (November 2014 onwards) Contracts will be signed with the providers who will take over the 21 'NewCo's'.
"From April
2014 staff who will be working in the competed services will move over to one
of 21 ‘NewCos’, coterminous with the contract package areas announced in the government’s
response to Transforming Rehabilitation. Essentially, these will be holding
companies which will be government owned.
Each ‘NewCo’ would be led by a management team from within the Trust. It will operate in this way for between three
and nine months until all staff and assets move over to the new provider in the
autumn/winter 2014. It is not anticipated that there will be any immediate changes for staff, although restructuring is likely over time.
Of the 18,000
staff currently employed by Probation Trusts, approximately 6,000 will transfer
to the new Public Sector Probation Service. The structure
of the PSPS will be seven divisions and the Local
Delivery Units based on local authorities will be the building blocks. These
will be clustered to form units which take account of police force areas.
The competition will be advertised in late August. Between august and October, prime bidders will go through a pre-qualifying questionnaire process.Those who meet a quality threshold and who are financially viable will go forward to a dialogue process (autumn 2013 - January 2014) and will submit full bids by spring 2014. Contracts will be awarded by October 2014.
I can promise that we will endeavour to
treat all staff fairly and follow due process when it comes to the difficult
process of allocating staff either to the National Probation Service or to the
services going to the new provider."
The latter point seems to confirm that it will be left up to individual Trusts to undertake the invidious process of selecting who stays and who goes. As has already been pointed out in several quarters, this will inevitably lead to to a huge number of grievances being lodged and that should clog the system up nicely for quite a few months.
The Ministry of Justice recently published further details of how the contracts will be framed and has invited comment on the proposals. Russell Webster outlines the main aspects in his recent post here and makes the point that the MoJ clearly intend to leave it up to individual bidders as to how much risk they are prepared to take in terms of the Payment by Results element. So bidders will not just be competing on price, they will have to compete on the proportion of PbR as opposed to fixed fee. Oh it's definitely an omnishambles in the making this one!
Meanwhile NAPO are still bravely trying to give the impression that it's 'business as usual' despite having now lost the services of a joint chair, thus leaving some members concerned regarding the remaining incumbent's mandate. Still, at least Harry Fletcher has at last 'broken cover' and has started tweeting somewhat half-heartedly for the cause whilst undertaking his new work on anti-stalking. I wonder if he might be tempted in the coming months to shed some light on what exactly has been going on behind the scenes at Chivalry Road?
The No10 petition can still be found here.
You seem to have your ear to the ground jim. Wondering if you have any information, or know where to get it, for those of us who have just had enough and more then happy to just take redundancy. Is there any thing in the pipe line that your aware of? Just fed up with the lot of it. Used to enjoy my career until it turned into just a job. I feel surrounded by people who have such a different approach to things because they've come to the job starting from a far different base line and remit then myself. Dont really think my my personal beliefs and politics are suited to the way the service moving any more. Thought my CQSW would be far better suited to social work now, but even there its all about experience on the job and i get the feeling an NVQ would put me in better stead! Mabe im just a service dinasaur, but i'd like to feel that i did make a diffetence in the days that you could, but now i'm ready to go before im replaced with some automated machinery that can process the huge amount of paperwork and assessments far quicker and far cheaper then myself. Its no longer ( nor has it been for awhile now) the job i signed up to do. I'd be greatful if you have any information jim.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a very difficult issue for those 'old timers' still around with CQSW's and utterly disillusioned with what's happening.
DeleteI wish I could offer some comforting words, but in reality I don't think I can. It's just shit. Having said that, the CQSW and bags of experience should get your foot in the door of Social Services or similar agencies - but I would advise getting guidance on how to sell yourself well on a modern CV and at an interview first. Lets face it - at the moment we're all down at the moment and not likely to give a good impression.
The reality is most of us haven't been for a job interview in decades and it's all changed. But we really do have valuable and transferable skills. I give you one example. A few years ago GCHQ the secret govt agency based in Cheltenham were specifically recruiting PO's for their interviewing and assessment skills. Not everyone's cup of tea, but an indication of our esteem in certain quarters as trusted public servants.
Best of luck though and thanks for commenting,
Cheers,
Jim
The latter point seems to confirm that it will be left up to individual Trusts to undertake the invidious process of selecting who stays and who goes.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but it does nothing of the sort. With respect I ask that you amend this potentially misleading speculation asap. MOJ have already agreed to national negotiations and therefore NO ONE should engage in local negotiations. They should also report any attempts to do so by Trusts to NAPO HQ. Thanks
Martin,
DeleteI'm sorry if I've touched a raw nerve, but it's precisely how I'm reading the runes. If I'm wrong, then we shall soon find out.
Thanks for commenting,
Jim
OK Jim, and yes this is certainly touchy subject. I simply want to avoid people reading your runes and running off to their management to discuss the selection process. It is crucial that this does not happen.
DeleteBest
Martin
Thanks Martin,
DeleteJim
I understand that many of us are still in the dark over what is to happen with the probation service. We are not aware of how the split will happen and how staff will be allocated. I have been informed by my line manager that as a PSO I will be transferred to the newco - nobody has asked me what I want, no selection or application process, it is inevitable and I should prepare myself. I feel so let down and abandoned after 18 years of service.
DeleteNo one knows yet for sure the process of staff allocation. I have been through numerous restructures including a privatidation of a public sector utility to privatisation. What will happen is what is the cheapest, quickest effective route which I suspect will be job matching. A fair recruitment process would involve huge amounts of time and leads it wide open to numerous grevences which delays the plan. Believe me even if it is recruitment scoring can be manipulated to fit particular requirements. However, no negotiating or resistence is dangerous for a cart blanche approach including criteria such s sickness records, performance appraisals which lets face it are subjective depending on the approach of your manager.
Deletespelling - ohh well could spend 10 hours using a very slow spell check - ooooh just like Delius or should I say hidious.
Deletelol
DeleteThere's no doubt that the selection process is going to be very painful and will pit colleagues against colleagues. We must hope that the unions, Napo and Unison will try and influence the process, but there will inevitably be a feeling of everyone for themselves.
DeleteYes we've all been let down badly and everyone will have to go through the painful process of considering their position and inevitably that will involve looking at other employment avenues.
For PSO's it looks like there will be no place in the Public Probation Service and therefore it will be a transfer to the NewCo's prior to appointment to a private contractor. As you say - no choice in the matter and you have every right to feel pissed off.
I hope things work out ok for you and thanks for commenting.
Cheers,
Jim
National negotiations are important, Martin, but, whatever conclusions they reach, the actual decision over who goes, Fred or Mary, will probably, to some extent, be down to Trusts because the national figures of a 70/30% split are reached by erroneous assumptions about role definitions and risk.
ReplyDeleteI hear you,Rob but I still think the phrase 'left up to individual trusts' on how the 'invidious process' happens is misleading. Yes they may implement a process but no-one should think this process is being 'left up to them'. Moreover, I've heard talk of HR hubs using external agencies to manage the separation..
DeletePlease forgive my ignorance but I'm not part of, or associated with the probetion service in any way. I do however have a social science background, and have an intrest in the world I live in. I keep reading and hearing about payment by result, but I'm clueless as to what actually constitutes a result in these circumstances. I'm not altogether sure what form of measurement can be applied or when a " result" can be recorded as a result. I mean, what exactly would a probation officer regard as a result? It seems to me that that with the vast differences in offending behaviour, and the many many different reasons underpinning such patterns of criminal behaviour, that a tick box, one cap fits all approach to a "result " is dangerously simplistic. Just what will constitute a result that warrents payment??
ReplyDeleteYou raise a key issue! What is a result indeed? The government will basically say an absence of a new conviction. As a social scientist you will appreciate this is a little crude and ignores a lot of issues, not least being a failure to get caught.
DeleteProbation officers have long had to measure 'success' in a variety of ways. Famously Geoffrey Parkinson of New Society fame got into a great deal of trouble for admitting he'd suggested his bank robber might do a bit of benefit fraud instead. Success is difficult to measure - it might mean less serious offending, a period drug free, taking medication, finding a job, learning to read etc etc etc.
The government don't understand this. The public don't either. Social scientists do though I think.
Thanks for commenting,
Cheers,
Jim
It is good to see the comments - there are also some in the Napo Forum.
DeleteI would urge no one to agree anything unless specifically advised it is safe to do so by the National Napo Negotiators AND join Napo or Unison, depending on your job - this applies to Clerical and Admin staff as well who will also get swept along in the shambles.
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=242
link to Napo Forum comments "TUPE will not be implemented"!
Well I was really pleased to see developments with the Lords today. I am under no illusion that this will save the day but at least I wrote to write to Lord Ramsbottom to ask for his support and got a decent reply. I think some strategic thinking about historically who Probation's big supporters have been is important. I have not been around for that long but have extensively researched Probation history. A heart felt personal message to some of these people via e-mail which can be done over the parliment website has helped. The next step would be a Panorama expose into LPT/Serco, perhaps providing them with a few helpfull suggestions. Can see it now shock horror to the public about how risky people are not being managed and profit is overiding everything. Remeber the fiddling of NHS call centre figures etc.
ReplyDeleteWe've always enjoyed a high degree of support from the House of Lords and they can still seriously screw up the government's plans if they so desire.
DeleteWe do need to do more as individuals without a doubt - and as to LPT and the Serco contract - we don't necessarily need a BBC Panorama programme - we just need one or two anonymous whistleblowers to tell us what's going on!
Come on guys - for goodness sake spill the beans!
Keep at it and thanks for commenting,
Jim