Strictly speaking I suppose I've been straying a bit more than usual from my probation remit, but I don't feel like apologising. The government have signalled their intention of speeding up the privatisation of core probation tasks and it annoys me greatly.
In view of this, I think it's only fair to examine what the track record looks like where the private sector have already taken over. Are there really cost savings and greater efficiencies to be had, or is it just plain political ideology and dogma, coupled of course with opportunities for some people to get rich?
Somehow I feel in need of a bit of a roundup, just to serve as a reminder. From memory and my own sphere, there was the Mitie fiasco over their contract to supply maintenance and cleaning services to the probation estate. Then there was the well publicised case of the poorly-performing national contract for translation services to HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
The contracts for prisoner escort haven't exactly run entirely smoothly and there is scant evidence of private contractors being able to run prisons either more cheaply or better than HM Prison Service. On top of all this, there has been recent widespread criticism of the cosy cartel of two electronic tagging contractors G4S and Serco as their contracts come up for renewal. I'm sure there must be other examples, but I did say this was from memory.
Looking at other areas, I'm reminded of the recent knowledge that surfaced from a Freedom of Information request I believe about the Train Operating Companies. Apparently they are on to a nice little earner whereby they pocket tens of millions of pounds from state-owned Network Rail, paid out in respect of train delays, but the vast majority of which is not passed on to passengers.
On the same theme, it's emerged from a BBC Radio 5 live investigation that motorists are beginning to get bills from private contractors in respect of alleged damage to motorways. Sometimes amounting to many thousands of pounds, it seems that when challenged for evidence, these bills either miraculously disappear, or are drastically reduced. According to the programme, the reason this is happening is as a result of a much 'leaner' contract process.
What beats me is, why did anyone think you can get more for less under privatisation without it having an effect somewhere?
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Monday, 8 October 2012
Wake Up and Smell the Coffee
According to Alan Travis writing in The Guardian on Thursday, new Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is 'tearing up' Ken Clarke's proposed community punishment reforms and will use his speech at the Tory Party conference this week to prove his credentials as a 'tough' minister. Apparently he intends to 'put some bite' into the proposals, with a more punitive element in the community sentences handed out to 220,000 offenders each year.
Not a great surprise given his track record and always a sure sign that politicians are in trouble when they start 'talking tough on crime.' He is also going to announce an 'acceleration' in proposals to privatise significant chunks of core probation work, together with more prisons. It's widely expected that disgraced G4S and Serco will be the main beneficiaries of this multi-million pound bonanza.
Now the public, and politicians of all persuasions, have come to be very familiar with the short-comings of G4S, but what about Serco? Well interestingly this story has recently emerged about their contract in Cornwall supplying out-of-hours GP services. It has admitted to providing the NHS with false performance data on 252 occasions.
Apparently the commissioning PCT had become concerned following an investigation by The Guardian and triggered by several whistleblowers. I love this bit, the PCT was obviously so concerned that it 'asked Serco to audit itself.' Anyway they decided it was best policy to 'come clean' and admit to the fiddling of the figures. The PCT was so concerned, they asked the Care Quality Commission to investigate and amongst other things found that Serco was failing to meet four key legal requirements to provide enough staff and to ensure its monitoring of its performance was accurate. The CQC also reported staff as saying "data manipulation went back four years or more".
The article states that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee feels that the issue of fraudulent behaviour is so serious that she has asked the National Audit Office to investigate.
Readers will recall that Serco was the successful bidder for the London Community Payback contract in partnership with the London Probation Trust. They are also destined to be preferred bidders for other bits of probation that Chris Grayling wants to privatise.
Not a great surprise given his track record and always a sure sign that politicians are in trouble when they start 'talking tough on crime.' He is also going to announce an 'acceleration' in proposals to privatise significant chunks of core probation work, together with more prisons. It's widely expected that disgraced G4S and Serco will be the main beneficiaries of this multi-million pound bonanza.
Now the public, and politicians of all persuasions, have come to be very familiar with the short-comings of G4S, but what about Serco? Well interestingly this story has recently emerged about their contract in Cornwall supplying out-of-hours GP services. It has admitted to providing the NHS with false performance data on 252 occasions.
Apparently the commissioning PCT had become concerned following an investigation by The Guardian and triggered by several whistleblowers. I love this bit, the PCT was obviously so concerned that it 'asked Serco to audit itself.' Anyway they decided it was best policy to 'come clean' and admit to the fiddling of the figures. The PCT was so concerned, they asked the Care Quality Commission to investigate and amongst other things found that Serco was failing to meet four key legal requirements to provide enough staff and to ensure its monitoring of its performance was accurate. The CQC also reported staff as saying "data manipulation went back four years or more".
The article states that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee feels that the issue of fraudulent behaviour is so serious that she has asked the National Audit Office to investigate.
Readers will recall that Serco was the successful bidder for the London Community Payback contract in partnership with the London Probation Trust. They are also destined to be preferred bidders for other bits of probation that Chris Grayling wants to privatise.
Sunday, 7 October 2012
Why?
I suspect everyone who has become aware of the case will have been touched in some way by the extensive and on-going efforts to find missing little April Jones. More than ever, a desperately sad story like this serves as a stark reminder of some very difficult and challenging aspects of this job.
Now that someone has been charged with abduction, murder and attempting to pervert the course of justice, almost certainly a probation officer will be allocated right from the first Magistrates Court appearance. In an ideal world this person will follow the case right through trial to possible conviction and beyond in order to gain as much background information as possible, given the potential for a Life Sentence.
It tends to be forgotten that in addition to supervising offenders in the community, the probation service is involved in every case where imprisonment is greater than 12 months. More particularly probation officers are involved in every serious case, no matter how notorious or heinous the crime, and right from conviction. To put it mildly, this can be very taxing and stressful as they seek to challenge and endlessly search for the answer to the questions what, when and most importantly, why?
I've always taken the view that it is good practice to 'pair' officers in extremely difficult cases both for mutual support and continuity in recognition of an increasingly fluid and mobile work force. In view of cutbacks, I know this policy has been largely cast aside, but in my view is a most unwise development, not just professionally, but also in terms of looking after the welfare of staff.
Now that someone has been charged with abduction, murder and attempting to pervert the course of justice, almost certainly a probation officer will be allocated right from the first Magistrates Court appearance. In an ideal world this person will follow the case right through trial to possible conviction and beyond in order to gain as much background information as possible, given the potential for a Life Sentence.
It tends to be forgotten that in addition to supervising offenders in the community, the probation service is involved in every case where imprisonment is greater than 12 months. More particularly probation officers are involved in every serious case, no matter how notorious or heinous the crime, and right from conviction. To put it mildly, this can be very taxing and stressful as they seek to challenge and endlessly search for the answer to the questions what, when and most importantly, why?
I've always taken the view that it is good practice to 'pair' officers in extremely difficult cases both for mutual support and continuity in recognition of an increasingly fluid and mobile work force. In view of cutbacks, I know this policy has been largely cast aside, but in my view is a most unwise development, not just professionally, but also in terms of looking after the welfare of staff.
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Lies, Damned Lies and Figures
We are told that the reason for three civil servants being suspended at the Department for Transport in relation to the rail franchising scandal is 'an unacceptable error' in preparing the figures.
Now I don't know about you, but I've always had a tendency to treat figures with a pinch of salt, working on the premise that if it doesn't sound or feel right, it probably isn't. Actually I tend to apply this philosophy to virtually all aspects of life and it seems to serve me well. If the first couple of gulps of beer don't seem right, it's probably off. If the deal seems too good to be true, you can bet it is. If the guy's story sounds unconvincing, it probably is. Of course this scepticism is particularly valid if you are being sold a particular line, or figures are being used to try and support a particular policy or political stance.
I decided not to watch the BBC1 Panorama programme a few weeks ago about older people drinking too much, probably because it was too close to home and would depress me. Apparently 1.4 million older people are drinking too much, but it was said that the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol would result in 50,000 less deaths over a ten year period amongst this group.
Now we are bombarded with facts and figures on a daily basis, normally with some kind of political motivation behind them. Mostly they go in one ear and out the other, seemingly correct because, well we heard them via the media of various sorts and if published, surely they must be correct or at least not easily open to challenge? After all very intelligent people in government or universities have compiled them, that's what we pay these people for.
So it comes as a bit of a surprise to have discovered the following disclaimer on the BBC website:-
"Correction 28 September 2012: The main figure in this story has been amended from 50,000 to 11,500 after it emerged that there had been an error in the calculations carried out for Panorama by the School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield."
Now that is one hell of an admission to have to make and completely alters the thrust of the argument. Apparently the 'error' only came to light when challenged by a knowledgeable member of the public. One really has to wonder just how many other dodgy figures we are being fed on a daily basis.
Many years ago I well remember having very heated arguments with my father-in-law about the supposed benefits of nuclear energy. Working as an engineer for the then nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board, he used to produce loads of facts and figures to prove how much 'cheaper' nuclear generated electricity was. So cheap in fact that when The Queen opened the first station at Calder Hall, it was seriously suggested that there would be little point in metering.
Of course we now know how ludicrous those assertions were, not least because nobody ever had the foresight or insight to raise the thorny issue of the future enormous decommissioning costs that would vastly exceed the costs of construction. There was a political imperative to build nuclear in order to obtain fissile material for nuclear weapons, but it was sold to us on the basis of a dodgy economic argument.
And so it remains to this day, figures seemingly 'proving' how much cheaper things can be done by the private sector. You see where this post is going. Cheer-leader for the business community the CBI recently published a report entitled Open Access claiming that "opening up public service delivery to independent providers ....could achieve savings of £22.6 billion, or more."
Not surprisingly there is widespread scepticism of such a claim and particularly the lack of transparency of the process that provided such a startlingly large figure. The GuerillaPolicy website have taken issue with this and explain:-
"For such a big claim, the research has a fairly simple methodology. The researchers (Oxford Economics) looked at 20 different service areas to determine the average cost savings from greater efficiency and productivity from outsourcing (a figure of at least 11 per cent, within a range of 10-20 per cent); applying the same calculations across the estimated £278 billion of public services which the CBI believes could be fully ‘opened up’ produces potential savings from outsourcing of £22.6 billion."
"As the CBI’s report notes, we are in the middle of the biggest wave of government outsourcing since the 1980s, with more than £4 billion in tenders being negotiated in 2012 alone in services ranging from prisons and police to defence and health. Given this, we need much more robust and reliable research about the benefits and the problems that outsourcing more public services would produce – before we outsource these services (perhaps irreversibly). The research commissioned by the CBI may or may not be a useful contribution to this analysis; the problem is that because of the report’s own lack of transparency, it’s very difficult for us to know."
Now I don't know about you, but I've always had a tendency to treat figures with a pinch of salt, working on the premise that if it doesn't sound or feel right, it probably isn't. Actually I tend to apply this philosophy to virtually all aspects of life and it seems to serve me well. If the first couple of gulps of beer don't seem right, it's probably off. If the deal seems too good to be true, you can bet it is. If the guy's story sounds unconvincing, it probably is. Of course this scepticism is particularly valid if you are being sold a particular line, or figures are being used to try and support a particular policy or political stance.
I decided not to watch the BBC1 Panorama programme a few weeks ago about older people drinking too much, probably because it was too close to home and would depress me. Apparently 1.4 million older people are drinking too much, but it was said that the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol would result in 50,000 less deaths over a ten year period amongst this group.
Now we are bombarded with facts and figures on a daily basis, normally with some kind of political motivation behind them. Mostly they go in one ear and out the other, seemingly correct because, well we heard them via the media of various sorts and if published, surely they must be correct or at least not easily open to challenge? After all very intelligent people in government or universities have compiled them, that's what we pay these people for.
So it comes as a bit of a surprise to have discovered the following disclaimer on the BBC website:-
"Correction 28 September 2012: The main figure in this story has been amended from 50,000 to 11,500 after it emerged that there had been an error in the calculations carried out for Panorama by the School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield."
Now that is one hell of an admission to have to make and completely alters the thrust of the argument. Apparently the 'error' only came to light when challenged by a knowledgeable member of the public. One really has to wonder just how many other dodgy figures we are being fed on a daily basis.
Many years ago I well remember having very heated arguments with my father-in-law about the supposed benefits of nuclear energy. Working as an engineer for the then nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board, he used to produce loads of facts and figures to prove how much 'cheaper' nuclear generated electricity was. So cheap in fact that when The Queen opened the first station at Calder Hall, it was seriously suggested that there would be little point in metering.
Of course we now know how ludicrous those assertions were, not least because nobody ever had the foresight or insight to raise the thorny issue of the future enormous decommissioning costs that would vastly exceed the costs of construction. There was a political imperative to build nuclear in order to obtain fissile material for nuclear weapons, but it was sold to us on the basis of a dodgy economic argument.
And so it remains to this day, figures seemingly 'proving' how much cheaper things can be done by the private sector. You see where this post is going. Cheer-leader for the business community the CBI recently published a report entitled Open Access claiming that "opening up public service delivery to independent providers ....could achieve savings of £22.6 billion, or more."
Not surprisingly there is widespread scepticism of such a claim and particularly the lack of transparency of the process that provided such a startlingly large figure. The GuerillaPolicy website have taken issue with this and explain:-
"For such a big claim, the research has a fairly simple methodology. The researchers (Oxford Economics) looked at 20 different service areas to determine the average cost savings from greater efficiency and productivity from outsourcing (a figure of at least 11 per cent, within a range of 10-20 per cent); applying the same calculations across the estimated £278 billion of public services which the CBI believes could be fully ‘opened up’ produces potential savings from outsourcing of £22.6 billion."
"As the CBI’s report notes, we are in the middle of the biggest wave of government outsourcing since the 1980s, with more than £4 billion in tenders being negotiated in 2012 alone in services ranging from prisons and police to defence and health. Given this, we need much more robust and reliable research about the benefits and the problems that outsourcing more public services would produce – before we outsource these services (perhaps irreversibly). The research commissioned by the CBI may or may not be a useful contribution to this analysis; the problem is that because of the report’s own lack of transparency, it’s very difficult for us to know."
Friday, 5 October 2012
I Want to Tell You a Story
A couple of years ago a good friend of mine decided on a career change having spent well over 25 years in the same branch of the retail industry. They had good interpersonal skills and eventually found themselves on a 2 year fixed term contract with the Department of Work and Pensions and on the front line of a busy Job Centre.
Moving from the private to the public sector provided a very favourable contrast in pay, pension and working conditions generally, but many of the permanent staff were found to be lazy, lacking in motivation, unsympathetic to 'customers' and morale was low generally. Despite the temporary influx of 'fixed-termers' serving to highlight the negative attributes amongst many of the time-served civil servants, and excelling in 'service delivery', there was no scope to add the best of the temporary staff to the permanent payroll.
So, having decided that working with the problematic long-term unemployed was extremely rewarding, my friend had no alternative but to seek employment with one of the many private contractors delivering firstly New Deal and latterly the Work Programme for the DWP. As a consequence this person has returned to an environment of considerably less pay, as yet no pension and a bullying-style of management that is utterly target-driven. Interestingly, significant numbers of the staff were found to have exactly the same negative characteristics as at the DWP.
Despite this, my friend remains resolutely focused on the needs of the individual. Many are former or current probation clients with multiple welfare needs both emotional and practical that must be addressed before there is any hope of them being even remotely employable. As I have discussed on numerous previous occasions, probation doesn't 'do' welfare any more, and these issues don't figure highly by target-driven private companies paid only by results.
But, as a dedicated work coach, this person has discovered these are real people with real needs and they respond to patient, focused support and guidance as they are gently edged towards having the confidence to firstly think about getting a job and then practical help with the wherewithal to actually get a job. It takes many months of patient work, social work in many cases, but surprise, surprise, it pays off.
But effectively it has to be done covertly because clearly there's no money and hence time allowance for what this person is doing under the current Payment by Results regime. They have to work doubly hard, driven by a very old-fashioned vocational ethos so reminiscent of probation when I started. Confirmation of this came recently when it was announced that several charity Work Programme providers have gone bust for precisely this reason.
Every good story has a moral. Some things are simply best done by the public sector, but that sector must be well trained, well managed, paid fairly and motivated.
Moving from the private to the public sector provided a very favourable contrast in pay, pension and working conditions generally, but many of the permanent staff were found to be lazy, lacking in motivation, unsympathetic to 'customers' and morale was low generally. Despite the temporary influx of 'fixed-termers' serving to highlight the negative attributes amongst many of the time-served civil servants, and excelling in 'service delivery', there was no scope to add the best of the temporary staff to the permanent payroll.
So, having decided that working with the problematic long-term unemployed was extremely rewarding, my friend had no alternative but to seek employment with one of the many private contractors delivering firstly New Deal and latterly the Work Programme for the DWP. As a consequence this person has returned to an environment of considerably less pay, as yet no pension and a bullying-style of management that is utterly target-driven. Interestingly, significant numbers of the staff were found to have exactly the same negative characteristics as at the DWP.
Despite this, my friend remains resolutely focused on the needs of the individual. Many are former or current probation clients with multiple welfare needs both emotional and practical that must be addressed before there is any hope of them being even remotely employable. As I have discussed on numerous previous occasions, probation doesn't 'do' welfare any more, and these issues don't figure highly by target-driven private companies paid only by results.
But, as a dedicated work coach, this person has discovered these are real people with real needs and they respond to patient, focused support and guidance as they are gently edged towards having the confidence to firstly think about getting a job and then practical help with the wherewithal to actually get a job. It takes many months of patient work, social work in many cases, but surprise, surprise, it pays off.
But effectively it has to be done covertly because clearly there's no money and hence time allowance for what this person is doing under the current Payment by Results regime. They have to work doubly hard, driven by a very old-fashioned vocational ethos so reminiscent of probation when I started. Confirmation of this came recently when it was announced that several charity Work Programme providers have gone bust for precisely this reason.
Every good story has a moral. Some things are simply best done by the public sector, but that sector must be well trained, well managed, paid fairly and motivated.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Business Opportunities
I'm feeling particularly irritable at the moment and a glance at the Greater Manchester Probation Trust website just makes matters worse. Their news section excitedly informs us that GMPT recently participated in the 12th annual Criminal Justice Management conference in London:-
Greater Manchester Probation Trust (GMPT) is participating in two seminars and will be marketing its innovative programmes team and research department. Lyndy Geddes, GMPT's commercial director, said the event provides the Trust with an excellent opportunity. She said
"GMPT boasts a number of newly developed programmes that are at the cutting edge of offender management, and we are extremely proud of the Interventions' Team and the work it is producing. I firmly believe that what has been developed by Interventions offers the best in courses aimed at tackling offending behaviour, therefore showcasing what we have created at this event will help grow our business and mark us out as a leader in our field. We all know the next 12 months represents something of a watershed for probation, but as the government's changes develop it will create a competitive environment in which we can succeed and flourish."
I guess this sort of typical imitative business-speak is going to flourish in the coming months as Trusts try and outdo each other and hence 'succeed and flourish'. Arrrrghhh! Personally, it makes me cringe and want to put as much distance as possible between myself and a 'commercial director', both physically and philosophically.
Anyway, Cumbria Probation Trust has clearly been impressed enough to be the first to shell out for the Improving Relationships programme IR-SC.
(I understand it can be purchased direct from GMPT. Please mention this blog when making enquiries.)
Greater Manchester Probation Trust (GMPT) is participating in two seminars and will be marketing its innovative programmes team and research department. Lyndy Geddes, GMPT's commercial director, said the event provides the Trust with an excellent opportunity. She said
"GMPT boasts a number of newly developed programmes that are at the cutting edge of offender management, and we are extremely proud of the Interventions' Team and the work it is producing. I firmly believe that what has been developed by Interventions offers the best in courses aimed at tackling offending behaviour, therefore showcasing what we have created at this event will help grow our business and mark us out as a leader in our field. We all know the next 12 months represents something of a watershed for probation, but as the government's changes develop it will create a competitive environment in which we can succeed and flourish."
I guess this sort of typical imitative business-speak is going to flourish in the coming months as Trusts try and outdo each other and hence 'succeed and flourish'. Arrrrghhh! Personally, it makes me cringe and want to put as much distance as possible between myself and a 'commercial director', both physically and philosophically.
Anyway, Cumbria Probation Trust has clearly been impressed enough to be the first to shell out for the Improving Relationships programme IR-SC.
(I understand it can be purchased direct from GMPT. Please mention this blog when making enquiries.)
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Train Crash
Well, well, well. So that very irritating man Richard Branson was right all along. Cast as the sore loser for seeking a Judicial Review of the decision to award the franchise for the West Coast Main Line to rival rail operator First Group, the very day before a judge was due to start hearing the case, the government caves in.
It's about as embarrassing as it gets for a new minister to have to admit that the 'extremely robust process' of bidding was indeed utterly flawed and as a result the taxpayer now has an immediate bill of about £40million to pay in respect of all the bidders costs, with the whole charade having to start all over again. Even worse, all current bidding processes are now on hold and there are bound to be demands for previous contract failures to be re-examined, particularly that of the East Coast Main Line currently being run directly by the government.
In trying to absorb all this, I can't help but bring to mind several old adages such as 'there's no such thing as a free lunch' and 'you only get what you pay for.' So what the hell has any of this got to do with probation I hear you ask? Well, we are about to suffer the same fate as other key public services and be privatised.
As I'm writing this, there are civil servants down in London at the Ministry of Justice drawing up contracts for the benefit of private companies such as G4S. How is anyone to feel comfortable or reassured that they are any better than their colleagues over at the Department of Transport in being able to fairly assess the relative merits of different bids, and especially those that have to be measured against public sector bidders?
I seem to recall that at the time the WCML result was announced it was said the government were mightily fed up with Richard Branson for having very successfully renegotiated his previous contract due to delays in Network Rail delivering the promised WCML infrastructure upgrade. There's just that tad of suspicion that politics plays a rather bigger part in awarding contracts than the government would have us believe.
Of course normally contract details are not open to public scrutiny and Freedom of Information requests are routinely refused on the convenient grounds of commercial confidentiality. It's taken a complete maverick like Richard Branson to cry wolf on the whole process and put it all before a judge for close scrutiny. And guess what, it would not have held up. So, as the announcement of civil servant suspensions is imminent, I'm left pondering just how many other contracts between the government and private contractors would survive such close forensic examination?
It's about as embarrassing as it gets for a new minister to have to admit that the 'extremely robust process' of bidding was indeed utterly flawed and as a result the taxpayer now has an immediate bill of about £40million to pay in respect of all the bidders costs, with the whole charade having to start all over again. Even worse, all current bidding processes are now on hold and there are bound to be demands for previous contract failures to be re-examined, particularly that of the East Coast Main Line currently being run directly by the government.
In trying to absorb all this, I can't help but bring to mind several old adages such as 'there's no such thing as a free lunch' and 'you only get what you pay for.' So what the hell has any of this got to do with probation I hear you ask? Well, we are about to suffer the same fate as other key public services and be privatised.
As I'm writing this, there are civil servants down in London at the Ministry of Justice drawing up contracts for the benefit of private companies such as G4S. How is anyone to feel comfortable or reassured that they are any better than their colleagues over at the Department of Transport in being able to fairly assess the relative merits of different bids, and especially those that have to be measured against public sector bidders?
I seem to recall that at the time the WCML result was announced it was said the government were mightily fed up with Richard Branson for having very successfully renegotiated his previous contract due to delays in Network Rail delivering the promised WCML infrastructure upgrade. There's just that tad of suspicion that politics plays a rather bigger part in awarding contracts than the government would have us believe.
Of course normally contract details are not open to public scrutiny and Freedom of Information requests are routinely refused on the convenient grounds of commercial confidentiality. It's taken a complete maverick like Richard Branson to cry wolf on the whole process and put it all before a judge for close scrutiny. And guess what, it would not have held up. So, as the announcement of civil servant suspensions is imminent, I'm left pondering just how many other contracts between the government and private contractors would survive such close forensic examination?
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Free Labour
I'm grateful to the NAPO discussion forum for highlighting a current job offer by the Hampshire Probation Trust on the Isle of Wight for a receptionist/admin officer. The only problem is the level of pay - there isn't any! :-
"Volunteer wanted - on the Isle of Wight (Newport Office) Ideal for Graduates/Job Seekers who wish to broaden their work experience. Duties will include: General reception duties; answering the telephone, taking messages, dealing with questions/queries from offenders, dealing with petty cash and offender travel claims, etc. General admin work including filing. sending letters, dead filing/archiving. Ad hoc court administrative duties."
Now most of us with long memories are very familiar with the use of volunteers within the probation service. Traditionally this was seen as a route for recruitment, not just another avenue for the mostly middle class to do something useful within their community. I know many officers started their careers as volunteers and they were a very useful resource, particularly in helping to provide for the welfare needs of clients.
Sadly, with the move away from our welfare orientation, many services gave up on volunteers completely, only to rediscover the concept in recent time with a new focus on mentoring and former offender engagement programmes. There's also a growing realisation that retired officers can be a valuable resource, skilled and able to undertake some supportive work with clients that 'adds value' to the limited amount of time hard-pressed officers have for each case.
Again, those with long memories will remember the days when probation used to regularly take part in YTS and Work Experience programmes when school leavers were encouraged to gain their first taste of the work place over several weeks. But this is very different.
There's no doubt that volunteering is definitely 'flavour of the month' once more in probation circles and I guess if you were cynical you would notice that it happens to coincide with a period of economic stringency and a government keen on fostering a 'Big Society'. But it takes macho Hampshire HR to take the concept to a whole new level and just blatantly try and fill real jobs with free labour.
Absolutely disgraceful and I think we can expect an emergency motion at the impending NAPO AGM in Torquay.
"Volunteer wanted - on the Isle of Wight (Newport Office) Ideal for Graduates/Job Seekers who wish to broaden their work experience. Duties will include: General reception duties; answering the telephone, taking messages, dealing with questions/queries from offenders, dealing with petty cash and offender travel claims, etc. General admin work including filing. sending letters, dead filing/archiving. Ad hoc court administrative duties."
Now most of us with long memories are very familiar with the use of volunteers within the probation service. Traditionally this was seen as a route for recruitment, not just another avenue for the mostly middle class to do something useful within their community. I know many officers started their careers as volunteers and they were a very useful resource, particularly in helping to provide for the welfare needs of clients.
Sadly, with the move away from our welfare orientation, many services gave up on volunteers completely, only to rediscover the concept in recent time with a new focus on mentoring and former offender engagement programmes. There's also a growing realisation that retired officers can be a valuable resource, skilled and able to undertake some supportive work with clients that 'adds value' to the limited amount of time hard-pressed officers have for each case.
Again, those with long memories will remember the days when probation used to regularly take part in YTS and Work Experience programmes when school leavers were encouraged to gain their first taste of the work place over several weeks. But this is very different.
There's no doubt that volunteering is definitely 'flavour of the month' once more in probation circles and I guess if you were cynical you would notice that it happens to coincide with a period of economic stringency and a government keen on fostering a 'Big Society'. But it takes macho Hampshire HR to take the concept to a whole new level and just blatantly try and fill real jobs with free labour.
Absolutely disgraceful and I think we can expect an emergency motion at the impending NAPO AGM in Torquay.
Monday, 1 October 2012
Responsibility of the State Surely?
I make no apology for returning to the issue of privatisation because the coalition government have made it plain that they intend to go much further than the previous Labour administration and probation is very much within their sights.
Many people voiced concerns at the time when the decision was taken to abolish the Forensic Science Service and instead allow the private sector to compete with Police Forces in providing this vital aspect of our criminal justice system. Many, including myself, still feel that only the state should undertake tasks that involve a citizens fundamental rights such as their safety and liberty.
An announcement is imminent regarding a further tranche of prisons that may well be turned over to the private sector and it's rumoured has only been delayed because of the G4S Olympic security scandal. The boundaries between the state and private enterprise is getting dangerously blurred in my view and I note with concern that G4S is the only non-governmental organisation that has access to the Police National Computer database.
It feels morally repugnant to turn a profit arresting people, prosecuting them and ultimately incarcerating them, so the news that a man was wrongly charged with rape and held in custody for two months because of sloppy practise by a private forensic laboratory should concern us all. LGC Forensics allowed DNA samples to become contaminated due to 'unsatisfactory' practise's within the laboratory and the man was only ruled out of the investigation by mobile phone location evidence.
Who the hell is LGC I hear you ask? Well, until privatised by the last Labour government, it was the very well-respected Laboratory of the Government Chemist.
Many people voiced concerns at the time when the decision was taken to abolish the Forensic Science Service and instead allow the private sector to compete with Police Forces in providing this vital aspect of our criminal justice system. Many, including myself, still feel that only the state should undertake tasks that involve a citizens fundamental rights such as their safety and liberty.
An announcement is imminent regarding a further tranche of prisons that may well be turned over to the private sector and it's rumoured has only been delayed because of the G4S Olympic security scandal. The boundaries between the state and private enterprise is getting dangerously blurred in my view and I note with concern that G4S is the only non-governmental organisation that has access to the Police National Computer database.
It feels morally repugnant to turn a profit arresting people, prosecuting them and ultimately incarcerating them, so the news that a man was wrongly charged with rape and held in custody for two months because of sloppy practise by a private forensic laboratory should concern us all. LGC Forensics allowed DNA samples to become contaminated due to 'unsatisfactory' practise's within the laboratory and the man was only ruled out of the investigation by mobile phone location evidence.
Who the hell is LGC I hear you ask? Well, until privatised by the last Labour government, it was the very well-respected Laboratory of the Government Chemist.
Friday, 28 September 2012
Heads Roll
So, two executives at G4S have fallen on their respective swords over the Olympic Security scandal, but somewhat amazingly the Chief Executive Nick Buckles so far survives. Apparently the 'independent' report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers said he was 'essential' to the business. Well maybe he is enjoying a stay of execution while he tries to persuade the government to hand over lots more cash under the terms of that breached contract.
Somewhat belatedly I notice that as a direct result of the Olympic fiasco, Surrey Police have decided to pull out of a major joint outsourcing contract with the West Midlands force and G4S. Potentially this was worth £1.5billion and the decision has been taken despite the recent active words of encouragement from Home Secretary Theresa May.
Personally I've also been more than surprised at such key contractual obligations being entered into by Police Authorities who only have a few months to go before being replaced by Crime and Police Commissioners. The whole issue of privatisation of police services will be bound to feature during the campaigning period prior to elections in November, with some candidates either being sceptical or full-on hostile to the notion.
Clearly there is mounting evidence that those in authority are seriously rattled about the privatisation route for public services and the possible consequences if things go 'belly up'. It's a possibility that is just as real for Probation as it is for the Police.
Somewhat belatedly I notice that as a direct result of the Olympic fiasco, Surrey Police have decided to pull out of a major joint outsourcing contract with the West Midlands force and G4S. Potentially this was worth £1.5billion and the decision has been taken despite the recent active words of encouragement from Home Secretary Theresa May.
Personally I've also been more than surprised at such key contractual obligations being entered into by Police Authorities who only have a few months to go before being replaced by Crime and Police Commissioners. The whole issue of privatisation of police services will be bound to feature during the campaigning period prior to elections in November, with some candidates either being sceptical or full-on hostile to the notion.
Clearly there is mounting evidence that those in authority are seriously rattled about the privatisation route for public services and the possible consequences if things go 'belly up'. It's a possibility that is just as real for Probation as it is for the Police.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)