A Clear Message

It's not often that comments on this blog produce a clear unambiguous message and consensus, but before colleagues even reached home on Wednesday from the Napo SGM in Birmingham, comments started coming in on a topic not even mentioned on the day - the Probation Institute:-

The Probation Institute serves to legitimise TR. The MoJ points to the presence of Napo on the PI Board. It sends a mixed message: we fiercely oppose TR but we are part of its architecture. Not a bad idea in theory but the timing was all wrong. Napo talks about sending messages to the wider public – through strike action and birthday cards for Grayling. Withdrawing from the PI would send a message. You can't be a poacher and a gamekeeper simultaneously.

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

If Probation Institute is about professionalism and good practice, what kind of an example is the current situation?? NAPO pull out of the PI planning and stop legitimising the farcical situation.

Look too at the others who have tried to improve professional practice and good practice such as the Probation Association who have cowered in a corner since TR began and Probation Chiefs Association - a spirited early skirmish before selling out ....The PI will become a trade association, sponsored by privateers, selling self help guides, insurance and health care!

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

At this moment in time, given what's going on with TR. can someone from NAPO comment here and now providing a justification for their continued involvement and membership of the TR motivated and conceived PROBATION INSTITUTE. Napo can stay involved with PI but I'm not joining and I'm leaving NAPO. It's a PRINCIPLE thing. Let Grayling know probation workers and their union mean business. Further can I ask - if TR wasn't on the agenda would the MOJ have part funded it?????

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

However, after believing the Probation Institute should be supported I now firmly believe NAPO should withdraw from it. PI is simply a veneer to indicate that Grayling et al value our profession THEY DO NOT. Please think about motions from your NAPO branches to withdraw from the PI.

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

I've just looked up their website and application form, am I right in thinking that anyone can join? Are there no minimum qualifications to be a member? Then what is the point?!?! Apart to legitimise TR?

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

While the Probation Institute is a great idea, it's a sop to the breaking up of our service - lets not fall for it.

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

How about NAPO withdrawing from probation institute immediately, lead by example napo leaders. The PI is an important part of TR so withdraw NAPO, pull the plug.

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

The mood is angry and clearly many Napo members feel strongly that, although the new Probation Institute might in theory be a good idea, at this precise key moment in our battle for professional survival, it's merely being used by the MoJ to provide TR with some legitimacy.

Seeing that Napo has always been a professional association as well as trade union, I find there is a compelling argument that at this juncture the emergent Probation Institute is hardly helping our cause. What do Napo top table have to say in response I wonder?

Grayling's Legacy

It looks like the latest day of action by our colleagues in the legal profession was a huge success. It really does take a lot to upset lawyers who have now withdrawn their labour on two occasions and show no sign of giving in over legal aid cuts.   






Maxine Peake tv's Silk and Lady Justice



According to Sadiq Khan, the Lord Chancellor believes Magna Carta is a large bottle of Champagne. 



It's been brought to my attention what the Labour Party Manifesto might have to say about probation, and it can best be described as weasel words I think:-

Success in the probation system is built on partnership working between agencies, and on the strength of the relationships between dedicated probation staff and individual offenders. The Government’s actions in breaking up this model go against the grain of everything we know about what helps to rehabilitate offenders. Labour will not allow decisions on the supervision of dangerous offenders to be determined by profit, rather than public safety, and we will make sure that those providing probation services are subjected to appropriate levels of transparency and scrutiny.

Clearly we have some work to do in relation to all political parties before the next election.

You will recall that Atos and the government are going to part company over the contract for Work Capability Assessments, but as one door shuts, another two open. First this from the Telegraph:-

The beleagured firm Atos has been given the contract to extract patient records from GP surgeries as part of the controversial NHS data sharing scheme, MPs were told yesterday. The Commons health committee heard that the firm has been given responsibility for removing personal data from medical records, as part of the national programme, which has been delayed for six months amid an increasing backlash.

Last week NHS England ordered the delay after pressure from patients groups, doctors’ leaders and privacy campaigners, who argued that the national plan had been poorly communicated, and that the public had not been properly informed about their right to opt out.

Yesterday, health service officials disclosed that a key contract for the controversial project has been handed to the firm Atos, which has faced criticism over its handling of “fitness for work” tests on disabled benefit claimants. Last week, the company confirmed it was seeking an early exit from its contract with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in the face of persistent death threats to staff.

The other door to open was reported here on the Civil Service World website:-

Lockheed Martin has won a five year IT services contract with the UK Ministry of Justice (MOJ). It is one of the biggest single IT services contracts won by Lockheed Martin’s UK operations to date, underpinning the company’s growing position in the UK IT services sector.

The MOJ provides IT services to approximately 90,000 users across the estate in England and Wales, which includes more than 600 courts and tribunals and 100 prisons.

As the provider of Service Integration and Management (SIAM) services to the MOJ, Lockheed Martin will manage the transition of existing services to a new operational model and manage the day-to-day delivery of a wide range of supplier services. It will work with the MOJ to ensure efficiencies are delivered, services are standardised and enhanced service levels are met, regardless of which company is delivering them.

Lockheed Martin is partnering with UK-based Atos, Skyscape Cloud Services and the Cadence Partnership to deliver the MOJ contract. With other new contracts, Lockheed Martin UK expects to increase its employee numbers by some 200 people.

Potential bidders for probation work, especially small ones, would do well to take note of the bullying tactics employed recently during negotiations for the national electronic tagging contracts and outlined here in the Guardian.   

The promise of a revolution in supervising offenders with a new generation of tags that could track them 24 hours a day by the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has suffered a setback with the collapse of talks this week with the small British hi-tech company that was to deliver the hardware at the centre of the scheme.

The breakdown sparked a furious exchange between the justice ministry and Buddi, which is run by Sara Murray, a member of Vince Cable's "entrepreneurs' panel", and chaired by the former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens.

Buddi was given preferred-bidder status in August to provide the hardware for the £1bn GPS tagging scheme with the contract to be awarded by the end of last year.

But the justice ministry has now confirmed that it has started the procurement process again, claiming that Buddi has failed to show it could supply the technology to keep track of 20,000 offenders at one time within the required timetable.

Buddi insists that the justice ministry wanted a product that doesn't yet exist, demanded it hand over its intellectual property on its smart tags without any guarantee it would not be used by other companies, and refused to pay for any further development work.

Murray said the hi-tech tag that justice ministry officials want was a "figment of their imagination", adding that the chances of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) now delivering on their end-of-year timetable was zero.

She said in a staff email, that the firm had told the MoJ they had experienced continued delays, immediate demands for lengthy documentation, and that they were not interested in paying for development work.

"They want the development of a product which does not yet exist," she said. "The MoJ have been an extraordinary diversion of much of our resources for two years now and this cannot continue, and we are excited for the prospects of the business now we are free of this unproductive and frustrating relationship."

The MoJ maintained that the collapse of talks would not produce fresh delays for a contract that was already 14 months behind schedule.

The ministry will ask 3M and Steatite, which missed out on the preferred bidder status last summer, to bid again under an accelerated procurement process. It is thought G4S, which has experience of GPS tags, and Serco have been banned for bidding for the tagging contract after the launch of a fraud investigation into their existing tagging contracts with the MoJ.

Chris Grayling is a bully by nature. That's not just my assessment from afar, but a view I've heard voiced by several unfortunate enough to have had dealings with him. At regular intervals on this blog the refrain has been 'why has there not been one Chief Officer willing to put their head above the parapet?' For a mature democracy the sad fact is that many are scared witless and have been ruthlessly silenced. 

Regular readers will recall last years infamous tweet by Heather Munro, CEO of London and by far the largest Probation Trust in England and Wales. By daring to challenge the 40% savings alleged for the London Community Payback contract with Serco, she was threatened with the sack. The CEO of West Yorkshire and CEO-designate of the new CRC was summarily un-designated immediately following her appearance on BBC 2's Newsnight programme. My strong suspicion is that all CEO's have been told in no uncertain terms that their pension and financial contract termination arrangements would be put in jeopardy by any outburst of TR opposition.

Yes it's disgraceful and reminds us all of those infamous gagging clauses rife within the NHS and together with the MoJ's refusal to publish the TR Risk Register, makes a complete mockery of the promise by prime minister David Cameron to ensure we have 'the most open and transparent government in the world'.  

In this article from the Independent of Chris Grayling we learn:-

One former civil servant says: “He is completely focused on his legacy, and appears to be conscious time is running out.”

As Joe Kuipers dryly observes:-

A legacy much like Beeching, who is also fondly remembered?

Indeed.

Latest From Napo 16

Just like buses, nothing for ages, then two at once. Here's the absolute latest from Napo HQ, e-mailed to all members late this afternoon. I don't normally pass comment, but this latest missive includes a correction of some significance to the earlier e-mail, which raises issues of competence at the top in my mind, if no other. 

TO: ALL MEMBERS

STOP THE SPLIT ON 1^st JUNE 2014/CLARIFICATION OF STRIKE TIMINGS

Members are increasingly reporting the true scale of damage inflicted on Probation Trusts by the TR agenda.  The huge numbers of staff vacancies and the organisational chaos means that service delivery is in constant threat of collapse*.  This is even before the formal split has happened.  However, much of this reality is being hidden from the public by sessional work.

Yesterday, at the SGM in Birmingham, we announced further strike action over the 31^stMarch to the 1^st of April.  The strike announcement was posted on our website but, as we were all at SGM, you may have received notice via twitter or the BBC website-such is the time we live in.

 ***CORRECTION TO THE BRANCH CIRCULAR TO MEMBERS BR 29/2014***

To avoid any doubt, this should have read that the Strike will be from Midday on 31^st March and all Day on 1^st April and the formal legal notice to employers will be issued on that basis - apologies for that glitch.

In order to maximise the impact of this escalated strike there will follow a month long programme of action short of strike action.  Members will be instructed not to undertake any sessional work whatsoever for the month of April.  You can even start this now by declining the additional work.  If you are doing sessional work now, then don’t book anything in for April.  This will have a hugely detrimental impact on service delivery but it will be nothing compared to what will happen after the 1^st of June.

To have any chance of stopping or delaying the split we need members to unmask what is going on.  Sessional programmes will have to cease for April.  Courts will struggle to sentence.  So be it.  As above, this is nothing compared to the impending car crash after the 1^st of June.  It is our responsibility to show just how bad this all is.  MP’s are asking for evidence about how bad things are but our sessional work is hiding it from public view.  If the government continues to press ahead with TR then we will press ahead with further industrial action.

Members will receive pledge cards which you can stick up at work about not helping the TR process with overtime.  In order to protect yourself from any disciplinary action you must do any task which you are “directed” to do.  Always seek clarification in writing. 

Further guidance will be with you early next week.

If you have examples of just how bad things are getting, email:campaigns@napo.org.uk and we will put it in our dossier for MPs.

*In some Trusts, managers are being offered to “sell” back their annual leave.  Court SPOs have said they will lose up to half of their allocation slots when they lose report writers to the CRC.

     

Tom Rendon                            Ian Lawrence
National Chair                          General Secretary

Latest From Napo 15

This is the latest e-mail from Napo HQ sent to all members earlier today:-

Dear Colleagues,
Napo ANNOUNCES FURTHER STRIKE ACTION 31^ST MARCH-1^ST APRIL

At a closed session of the Special General Meeting held in Birmingham yesterday I announced that our probation members in England and Wales are to be asked to take further strike action across the 31^st March-1^st April 12:00 noon to 12:00 noon)

Formal notice of the action will be sent to Trusts shortly and more details of the intended action and supporting literature will be sent to Branches at the earliest opportunity.

Why another strike?
Napo does not call for strike action lightly but this month sees a number of key events which will bring Chris Graylings Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda under serious scrutiny.  These include

• The House of Lords reading of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill - 11^th March
• A Napo ‘drop in’ session for Lib Dem and Conservative MP’s in the House of Commons - 12^th March  
• An enquiry by the influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) into TR. Napo has requested an opportunity to give oral evidence to the PAC to supplement our written submissions.
• The intention to ‘split’ probation staff into the two intended arms of the probation service on 1^st April

Our action is designed to raise the profile of Napo’s ongoing campaign against the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda and the serious risk that the programme poses to public safety by the intended sell off of our members work to the private sector. Napo has signalled its intention to expose the track records of the companies who have expressed an interest in bidding and will be continuing its active campaigning in and outside of Parliament to draw our concerns to an increasing number of parliamentarians and of course the wider public.

SGM gives a warm response to the announcement. 
Napo members who had made a tremendous effort to get to Birmingham received news of the strike plans with great acclaim as can be seen from the BBC coverage that followed the announcement and the spontaneous lunchtime demonstration that took place outside Birmingham Town Hall see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26454362 and Napo News Online (http://naponewsonline.org/2014/03/05/further-strike-action-announced-at-napo-sgm-in-birmingham/).

Possible co-ordinated action
Members have been asking that any action we take should be co-ordinated with other unions and organisations wherever possible and, as I announced yesterday, we are actively doing so. We have met with the Justice Alliance who are due to take industrial action this Friday 7^th March and I will be speaking at their London Rally outside Parliament at 9:00 (please show your support at any local activities that may be occurring in your area see the Justice Alliance website: http://justiceallianceuk.wordpress.com/. We hope that any further action that they may decide to take might coincide with our plans.

We are also speaking with the POA about any support they can give and I will be speaking at their rally and Parliamentary Lobby on 19^th March. We also understand that the National Union of Teachers will be taking strike action on 26^th March and it looks as if this could be a busy period where thousands of trade union members show their feelings against privatisation and the systemic attack on public services that is being perpetrated by this coalition government.

While Unison are not currently in a Trade dispute, I will be writing (as you would expect) to their General Secretary Dave Prentis to explore the practical support and solidarity that we would hope to see from their members during the strike.

Time for action!
While the Officers, NEC and myself appreciate that the lead in time to the strike is not as long as we would like, we hope that members will appreciate the strategic reasons why we have not made an announcement before now and until we have had talks with other potentially supportive parties. The action will provide an important opportunity to again demonstrate the recklessness of the TR agenda, expose the track records of the companies interested in purchasing the 21 CRC contracts. It will also send a clear signal to the bidders that Napo members will not be a compliant workforce, are deeply opposed to the sell off and intend to do all you can to defend your jobs, your livelihoods and stand up for the safety of the communities that you serve so well.

This is probably the most important strike that Napo has ever called in what is a critical moment in our campaign, and we will need all of our members who are to be involved to step up to the plate and show their resolve. I know that you will do so.

Yours sincerely

Ian Lawrence

General Secretary

A Grand Day Out

As we know from comments left on this blog, and that includes Ian Lawrence because he mentioned the 'democratic' nature of the internet, there were many who were sceptical about the need for this bit of introspection focused as it was on the constitution. But despite the pedantic and at times chaotic, confusing and arcane discussion of amendments to amendments, there are times when it's important to be reminded that being a member of a union means collective support and action. 



Spending 10 minutes of the lunch break gathering around Queen Victoria felt good and not only served to make sure the picture made it on to news bulletins, it also sent a none-too subtle signal to the MoJ who coincidentally were holding a bidders event at the Thistle Hotel nearby.   



I'm sure some constitutional amendments did get passed, but like many I'm not sure what exactly, but I do know Owen Jones electrified the auditorium with a barn-storming speech that earned him the only standing ovation of the day. This is clearly a young man who is going places and his oratory skills unmistakably invoke memories of great public speakers of the past and before the advent of TV made everything so damned anodyne.

His message pretty much echoed that of the Ken Loach film mentioned yesterday and he reminded us that voters of all political parties continually favour reigning back the privatisation of public services when asked by opinion polls. I honestly think his contribution alone salvaged the day in terms of confirming the worth of mixing invited speakers with the arcane business agenda. 



It's always good to hear from Frances Crook of the Howard League, another loyal Napo supporter, together with Harry Fletcher who continues to undertake sterling work behind the scenes in Parliament. The Offender Rehabilitation Bill returns to the Upper House for debate on 12th March and Lord Ramsbotham hopes to repeat his famous government defeat, thus triggering a highly embarrassing game of ping-pong with the House of Commons. 

Harry also reminded us that the indefatigable Margaret Hodge, Chair of the influential Public Accounts Committee, intends to get her teeth stuck into officials of the MoJ next week. Witnesses include Michael Spurr and Dame Ursula Brennan, Permanent Under Secretary, and they are to be asked to outline exactly how much the TR omnishambles is costing. The latter has somewhat of a reputation for being a bully and it's widely believed it was her who was responsible for the most recent delay in the TR timetable. It seems she was able to stand up to that other bully Chris Grayling and refused to sign off TR on the basis that it failed the key Business Readiness Test. It may still do of course! 

In this regard we were reminded by Assistant General Secretary Dean Rogers that government contracts normally take at least 2 years to prepare and negotiate, and longer if complicated. Those for TR are being rushed through in less than 9 months from start to finish, despite the MoJ repeatedly demonstrating their poor track record on such matters. And the clock is ticking inexorably towards the period of purdah prior to the General Election when all such actions must cease. The problems keep growing, the costs are escalating and potential bidders keep asking awkward questions that have no answers. The omnishambles is on track even if TR is not.

The big news of the day was the announcement of further strike action on March 31st and April 1st, Chris Grayling's birthday. Going on strike is pretty much anathema to probation staff steeped as they are in a strong public service ethos and it always strongly divides opinion, as demonstrated by these comments from last night:-

So we're going on strike again. I feel so despondent, I simply don't have the appetite for this. I can fully understand why they chose those dates but I'm so stressed I'm not sure I can cope with this as well. It's too little, too late. 

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

2 days is not enough. No one will care that we are striking for 2 days. More to the point, we ourselves feel that 2 days is apathetic. 2 weeks would be more of a statement and a stand. 2 weeks would show guts and determination and would leave the government floundering. 2 days is barely more than the 2 half day dithering we did before. Grayling is determined to privatise probation. We have to match that determination with our own. If we do not, we deserve to lose.

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

If I'm honest, in my heart of hearts I have no appetite for another strike. But I will still be on the picket line because it's the right thing to do. For me, being in a union is more than paying my subs every month, it's about taking collective action because - and I know this sounds cheesy - we are stronger together. 

The big question remains, where the hell is Unison in all this? Sadly there doesn't seem much sign of fraternal support from them and the uncomfortable truth maybe that they're biding their time in the hope of poaching members.

In his speech Ian Lawrence brought up the issue of the Judicial Review. Many of us have been wondering what was happening and I'm aware that at least one external unsolicited offer of legal assistance has recently been made. As with all things legal there are differences of opinion as to the strength of the case and it would appear advice from Napo's Counsel is that there are also significant financial risks involved. Given that Napo has money in the bank and this is a fight for professional survival, I think many members will feel that the matter must be tested. 

(pics courtesy Effie Perine) 

The Bigger Picture

As stalwart Napo members head off to Birmingham for a Special General Meeting called to rubber stamp constitutional amendments that take account of TR, the mood is tense to say the least. Many are angry about what they perceive has been only a half-hearted campaign by the union and are looking to vent some of that feeling within the portals of Birmingham Town Hall. Don't take my word for it though, just peruse a few days worth of comments left on this blog, such as this from a couple of days ago:-

The unions representing probation staff are not campaigning unions, they are more interested in securing membership numbers and focusing on day to day stuff. But come the big battles they are not fit for purpose. Grayling and MOJ researched how effective probation unions would be and came to the conclusion that they were not capable of combating TR. the opposition to TR and attacks on other aspects of the CJS have NOT been co ordinated, by unions involved, or the TUC or labour. I'm sure the civil servants who did the initial TR risk assessments will confirm that. 

The SGM appears to be a farce and the decision to amend various napo constitution elements to facilitate and legitimise TR is already done. Why do you think the SGM was arranged for a Wednesday!!!! Not only work commitments but family commitments etc will see few ordinary members attend. The fight to prevent TR is all but over. The staff split has happened, Key senior managers either appointed or leaving under voluntary redundancy, Hundreds of years of professional experience gone never to come back, Logos for new CRCs have been produced by MOJ, New staff id's being prepared, Profiteers meeting trust senior managers, visiting trust buildings, shite systems being put in place, case allocation system, re escalation systems, etc etc. 

Hundred of probation staff and MOJ staff taken off their normal duties to enable TR at the tax payers expense to simply hand over to profiteers - it's all but over, there is nothing in the pipeline from the unions, labour to ramp up opposition to TR. No doubt as part of the recriminations union reps will blame the inactivity and apathy of union members, which may well be the case, but the unions have failed to galvanise and motive probation workers. Plus ask yourself, why so many anonymous posts on here and elsewhere, that's a true indicator of worker fear, expressing opposition in today's workplace does bring with it recrimination-fact. 

So there you have it, in 2 or 3 years time a London CP situation will come to light, due to whistle blowers, more than likely a new government will need to pick up the pieces of a smashed once proud, internationally acclaimed probation profession. But whatever happens what will be lost on the 1st June 2014 will never be put back together again. The profiteers and TR supporters will have filled their pockets to varying degrees, whilst highly trained, dedicated and loyal ex probation workers disappear into oblivion or are found stacking shelves in a supermarket. The future is bleak, the future is TR. unless... Happens!!!! Discuss.

What has become quite obvious to me, ignoring for one moment the fact that TR is an utter pile of shite and will quite quickly prove to be a complete disaster, is that we have become embroiled in a much bigger ideological battle. This is not just about the rights or wrongs of a daft idea to privatise probation. Everywhere you look there is a pernicious attack on all public services and every part of the post-war settlement that we have come to know as the Welfare State.

When pondering what the hell to write today, I was struck by yet another amazing piece of serendipity. Last night I found myself in the company of a small band of concerned citizens for the purpose of a private viewing of Ken Loach's epic antidote to today's travails 'The Spirit of '45'. 

A wonderfully uplifting trip down memory lane, this 90 minute epic splendidly captures the joy and excitement as a nation, worn down by war, unequivocally decided to cast off the old class structure that perpetuated poverty and instead enthusiastically embrace socialism through public ownership and common purpose. Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian writes:-

The events and attitudes revived in Ken Loach's documentary-homage are so exotically distant that the "the spirit of '45" might as well mean the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. It consists of archive clips from the postwar Attlee government that brought in the welfare state, and interviews with surviving members of that generation – not the high-ups, but the doctors, nurses, trade unionists and general citizen-consumers of the new statist consensus that survived until Margaret Thatcher arrived in 1979. There is perhaps something a bit patrician-nostalgist in Ken Loach's movie, but I found myself increasingly swept along by the calm simplicity of its presentation, which makes it clear that the NHS is our last stand, the last survivor of the Beveridge spirit; it arose from the war, and this film reminds us that admiring the health service has become a distinctively patriotic virtue. There is no shortage of medical corporations licking their lips at the rich pickings it represents — a mass of privatisable loot. There are corporations who wouldn't be averse to putting ex-ministers on the directors' board a few years down the line, corporations who are naturally delighted at every anti-NHS news story. The Loach '45 spirit may be mocked – yet it seems preferable to the 21st-century spirit of austerity and paradox in which we found money to nationalise failing banks, maintaining the spirit of what Milton Friedman called socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor.

I've heard a lot about this film; the standing ovations at cinema screenings; the public meetings it spawns; the tears that it provokes. It's all true. As we continue the fight to save the Probation Service, the National Health Service and every other Public Service, get to see this film and get prepared for the nonsense politicians will be spouting as we head for the General Election of 2015. 

  

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.