Showing posts with label Atos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atos. Show all posts

Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Guest Blog 43

Reform is a right wing think tank that specializes in pushing the case for the privatization of the public sector. Of all its monies 70% comes from companies and 30% from the general public. Reform’s donors include corporate giants such as the General Healthcare Group, BMI Healthcare and BUPA Healthcare, all of whom would benefit from the selling off of public run services. The head of Reform (Nick Seddon) was also Head of Communications at Circle partnerships which describes itself as 'Europe’s largest healthcare partnership’ and is one of the great beneficiaries of the privatisation of the NHS. 

In 20012 the company took over Hinchingbrooke Health Care Trust the first time that an NHS hospital was handed over to the private sector. Seddon has written articles that call for the sacking of 150,000 NHS workers, real term cuts to the NHS budget and charges for GP visits. He has also called for healthcare to be 'largely funded by the government but organised outside the government' by insurance companies and other organisations.

Early in 2013 Reform published research endorsing the privatisation of Britain’s prisons, a policy from which even the Conservative-led government had been edging away. The report was widely cited in the British Media; the BBC flattered it by describing it as ‘thought provoking’. But what was not mentioned was Reform’s substantial funding from security firms G4S, SERCO and Sodexo – companies that were already running 14 prisons and stood to benefit from further privatisation. In 2012 alone Reform received £24,500 from G4S and £7,500 from SERCO.

In 2013 Seddon left Reform to become Cameron’s new health advisor!!!

Madson Pirie, a free market fundamentalist, and his outriders, the followers of Hayek, have not just moved mainstream - they are the mainstream. They have made ideas that were once considered ludicrous, absurd and whacky become the new common sense. They have shifted the ‘Overton Window.’ What was once whacky becomes normal and even moderate. Thatcher did not dare threaten the privatisation of the NHS but eventually after years of Thatcherism and then son of Thatcher ‘Blairism’, this was turned into a theoretical and actual reality by the last coalition government no less. They have laid the foundations of right wing radical ideas and then popularised them, with their friend Murdoch, to a mass audience. The national political conversation is kept relentlessly on the terms favourable to those with wealth and power. The Private Sector is good the Public Sector is bad – ‘four legs good two legs bad!’ (Orwell)

Tax credits could be seen as a state subsidy to private companies that pay low wages and they are now being reduced; housing benefits go to greedy Tory landlords. Douglas Carswell, the UKIP MP, refers to an oligarchy of corporate cronyism that the traditional shire Tories find revolting. The state therefore is the backbone of scrounging corporate capitalism, subsidising wages, bailing out banks and paying for private sector profit making organisations to terrify benefit recipients. 

ATOS (with a £500 million ‘scrounge’ off the taxpayer) means testing the disabled who are ‘bullied off benefits’ many of whom appeal successfully (over 50%) and many others who committed suicide. ATOS simply walked off the job retaining its profits. SERCO (Group 4? – what’s the difference they are all Tory shareholders) and the Olympics – original contract £7.3m then stretching to £60m (G4S) then couldn’t do the task it had been paid to leading to three and a half thousand tax payer paid soldiers being drafted in to finish the job. 

A4E in 2004 was paid £200m of tax payers money – all its income coming from the public purse - a total scrounger - terrorising people back to work. The Chief exec had £8.6m in stocks and shares, £365k per year in salary and was renting out her 20 bed mansion to her own organisation (conflict of interest?) whilst abusing, insulting and sending people to work at Poundland for free and making lots of other workfare people go to companies with close ties to the Tory Party, acquiring no skills in the process, but providing free servile labour. And the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme leading to no work later on; in fact less work than those who obtained work whilst on benefit

G4S, SERCO and Sodexo get over half their income from the state – 3 huge scroungers! (£4 billion to SERCO, G4S, Atos and Capita alone). The National Audit Office says that of £178 billion of public funds, over half is earmarked for the private sector. Even police services (and probation) have and are being taken over. Care in the Community opened up massive contracts to private care homes, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI)  swindle will cost future generations up to £301 billion and £20 billion of £95 billion of existing NHS monies are ready for the big P!

Nigel Lawson once said that the NHS was the nearest thing that the English had to a religion! Codex cleaners are earning half the wages they had 20 years ago - insidious - cleaner on 18 hours leaves and is replaced by one on 16 hours doing the same work or perhaps more! NHS is now contracting out the actual commissioning! Privatising the commissioning so that they can give it to themselves! Recently Surrey contracted out £500m, Peterborough £1.1 billion, much of the work going to Tory donors and as one Dr (Chand would you believe) said ‘If it does not generate profit it does not wish to know..............there is now cherry picking of elective surgery.........2 tier service’

These are the real scroungers sponging off society taking vast sums of tax payers money, producing reduced and poorer services, reducing codes and conditions of service and generating millions and billions to their shareholders (who are these we might ask? The haves and the have yachts?) whilst refusing to pay their proper taxes themselves. There is a programme on TV called Benefits Street but as yet no programme called ‘Tax Dodger St’ or ‘Off Shore Account St!’ Lastly, what about the Serious Fraud Office launching an enquiry into G4S and Serco after they allegedly over charged the tax payer for tens of millions of pounds of tagging that never took place?

I have seen a general election that was won outright, surprisingly, by the Tory Party that now has a working majority of 12 seats. The election exposed a democratic system that is anachronistic and unrepresentative given that UKIP had nearly 4 million votes and got 1 seat, the Greens over a million and 1 seat and the SNP got 57 seats for 1.5 million votes. If you look at the majorities of the Tories 12 most marginal seats, you will see that they have in fact a working majority of 1250 votes from all 12 combined! In certain countries people would be taking up arms at such unrepresentative injustice. 

Nonetheless, despite this lack of democracy the ‘winning party’ is embarking on a scorched earth policy of replacing the entire public sector with the private sector over the next 5 years and during the last 5 years the gap between rich and poor has widened on historically unprecedented levels; one million people attended food banks last year whilst 1000 people currently own £520 billion between them. George Osborne announced the other day that we will now be able to sell our houses for a million pounds without paying a penny of inheritance tax and in the same breath he is removing child benefits for every child after 2 and has announced cuts to the welfare bill of £12 billion pounds. You could almost see him taking it from one poor pocket and stuffing it into a rich one!

So it would be nice to think that the new Criminal Justice Companies would be ethically inclined in the delivery of its criminal justice service without a pre-occupation with making profits at all costs. A service that would look to diverting people wherever possible away from the criminal justice system and one that would shield the service users from the harsh judicial excesses that are possible under the 2003 CJA and now the 2014 ORA Act. A service that uses new technology appropriately and sparingly to deliver justice and evidence based interventions that work in reducing crime and the number of victims within society. Also a service that respects the high quality of its existing staff that will also seek to maintain its standards and conditions of service in order to attract personnel of similar quality and ability in the future.

But there is also the possibility during the next 5 years that we will get massive judicial inflation - selling goods (Court Orders and TAGs etc) that nobody needs to generate profits from people who do not need to go on orders or be Tagged; a large rise in the prison population as sentencers can now get prison plus supervision (something suggested in New Labour legislation in 2003 but not affordable – remember custody plus?); ‘sharper axes for lower taxes’ ie reduction of codes and conditions of service, replacement of staff with personnel that do more for less and possibly with reduced or no qualifications ‘better for less’; the blurring of the distinctions between the professional and other workers and what work can and cannot be done with and by whom (PSOs become DV experts in an afternoon?); the achievement of a manipulated key Performance Indicator (KPI) rather than the delivery of a professional service. 


Lastly, an organisation that leaves a criminal justice detritus, that is unreformable, to rot, whilst simultaneously cherry picking and making claims of success following interventions with a population of net-widened entrants who should never have been intervened with in the first place!

So 150,000 NHS workers - how many Probation Officers I wonder? Apart from that, everything is hunky dory! You can only say it as you see it. 

Cheers 

Sunday, 16 November 2014

TR Week Twenty Four 1

The MoJ say there are 'nominated officials' which sounds a bit scary. The MoJ does not regard any complaints or concerns about staffing levels as whistleblowing because they decreed the staff levels. They don't see H&S concerns, they see dissent in the ranks and they want to quash it. The MoJ is no honest broker. People go to the media and MPs because they have no trust or confidence in the authorities. And this stretches from unsafe jails to child sexual abuse.

******
I heard today that following the naming of Sodexo as a preferred bidder the CEO went out and got smashed, celebrating her £200,000 bonus for putting in a winning bid - so someone has to pay for her bonus!

******
Will newly qualified probation officers have to apply for jobs in the NPS? Surely if not, CRC PO's have been constructively dismissed as there are vacancies in the NPS? What about when companies try to get rid of PO's or reduce wages? I still don't see how the government have been able to treat staff from the same organisations so differently.

******
They are not guaranteed employment but its naive to think future recruitment to NPS will give equal credence to CRC POs as those cutting their teeth in the NPS.

******
I suppose they can afford to not give newly qualified staff posts, after all they are only paying for one years training which is why they're asking for criminology/community justice/police study degrees. Its outrageous the way they don't open up to PSOs who've done the job for years. People have families and have to bide their time for it to be right for them to apply. I'm probably what you would describe 'long in the tooth' but I've been bringing kids up and now they've left home I'm ready to train, but have been met with dead ends. I've done the job for years and it counts for nothing. 

The whole mess stinks and as for diversity don't make me laugh, I bet the majority of new recruits are from the same ethnic background and all under 30.


******
"the whole mess stinks and as for diversity don't make me laugh. I bet the majority of new recruits are from the same ethnic background and all under 30." In our office they're mainly female and have no experience. They are being trained to deliver Programmes 50% of the time.

******
Those "Cutting their teeth" in NPS, will surely also need to be seconded or similar into the CRC's in order to gain the experience and to inform reports? Those PSO's wishing to progress, don't give up, I hear there will be another 1000 trainees recruited in Jan 2015.

******
Where are the placements and assessors for these new recruits?

******
What will happen to the current Partners who work closely with Probation ie Accommodation and ETE? Who will provide those services? Will all unemployed offenders be referred to the Work Programme ie Working Links? Would that be double funding?

******
I'm concerned about why MOJ keep peddling the NPS being the rump of the service rubbish. What do they hope to achieve from it? Flattery in the hope that we don't notice something? What if that something is taking the PO role apart bit by bit to make each piece easier to get rid of until there is nothing left?

******
Page 20 of the TOM has a colourful flow chart of community orders and suspended sentence orders split between NPS and CRC, which doesn't show OASys featuring in the CRC work at all! 

******
That's because they're not obliged to use it.

******
We have a Justice Minister and SoS that doesn't give a hoot for professional assessment, so why should we be surprised when we discover that the tools we're given are actually for the wrong job?

******
The professionalism of Probation is a closed book to the SoS. He thinks we are a bunch of lefties who don't understand that all these criminals need is a good slap. Dumb, unsophisticated, unintelligent, uninformed.

******
Another heavy push on joining the Probation Institute in our CRC team briefing document this week. It says that the senior management team have all signed up, presumably as a way of encouraging the rest of us to do the same...

******
I suppose you can hardly blame them as they can say the unions have signed up! I hope the boycott continues.

******
A Q&A document from the PI claims that they had 600 members as of October. Not much out of 18,000 Probation staff really, is it?

******
What is the point? An organisation to promote good practice in an area where good practice will no longer apply because it is too expensive? Bit like the word 'deluxe' when attached to cheap goods.

******
Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that post share sale, membership of the PI will be on a basis of 'conscription' rather then 'subscription'. Private companies eager to demonstrate its 'professionalism' will want to be able to show the world that their entire workforce are all registered members of this professional centre of 'excellence'. It'll be their way of demonstrating the staff they employ are only the best, all of course members of the PI. I think that's a good enough concern for the union to withdraw its support.

******
According to its website, 'The Probation Institute will become the ‘go to place’ and leading voice on probation practice and policy.' You'd think it would have something to say about current policy and practice, but not a squeak. I'd say this blog is the 'go to place' and the PI should adopt the three wise monkeys as its logo, or a white elephant!

******
The Probation Institute has much in common with TR – they were both imposed by elites, although at least with TR there was a bogus consultation exercise; they attract no popular support; they are indifferent to criticisms: TR thinks it performing well and the PI is 'the go to place'. 

The PI was bankrolled by the TR enthusiasts, and lacking any independence or legitimacy, it looks the other way as the probation service is vandalised. What is the point of an organisation and all it's purported ethics and values if it looks the other way when it knows that the TR model has a highly dubious evidence base, is refusing to disclose risk assessments of potential dangers and is fragmenting an award winning service? Now, wouldn't you think the PI would have something to say? The PI is a hobby horse – a little earner of money and status for the few. What did the PI do to save probation? Nothing – because it's part of the superstructure of TR.

******
Computer systems in a mess? Need all your problems solved by a highly performing professional company with a track record in excellence? Here come ATOS!! Couldn't make it up, could you?

******
ATOS will no doubt do for information technology what they did for our understanding of sickness and disability. And if they screw up they will just walk away again.

******
I'm a PO in a CRC and I know I'm definitely not an officer of the court. However, I'd suggest that we stopped being officers of the court a long time ago, when the higher ups started talking about us providing services to the courts. But quite frankly the courts appear to be making increasingly ludicrous sentences - certainly there has been a definite upward spike in the number going back for revocation as unworkable from my office. This appears to be getting worse following the split between NPS and CRC, with report writers apparently not listening to advice given about cases by their erstwhile colleagues - or, to put it more charitably, not feeling able to act upon that advice.

******
I have a feeling that the upper management chain will be the first to feel the cuts, in either NPS or CRC, once the axe starts to swing. For the amount of contact I have with my SPO we may as well be pen-friends!! We have said nothing face to face that we could not do on the telephone. And if I can speak to a manager on the phone, why would I need one in my office? Or one for each office? The same goes for Directors. NOMS/CRC will have their own management structure in place, one that has 'taken the blue pill' and, like a Borg only with more warmth, fully embraces the culture of profit over people.

******
We've got that covered in our area - by creating a post that sits nicely between ACO and SPO all ready for the cuts.

******
It's all very well having assessment tools but not a lot of point when there is no time to use them. Our CRC has a backlog of initial OASys despite being told they must be completed in 20 days. No-one wants to work like this. I have a constant knot of fear in my stomach waiting for something dreadful to happen, along with being consumed by anger for the way I and others including offenders have been treated. Alongside this is my irritation with the apathy of colleagues who are complicit with TR and making money by writing reports or temping.

******
Here here, well said. To add to this is the way we have been made to feel as CRC workers like we chose to be in this position, all that bleating about NPS having a professional status. If ever there was a dumbing down of a profession it applies to all those that were SHAFTED INTO CRC's.

******
Mind you, I was told by a CRC admin colleague today that when she recently applied for a post in the NPS the application form asked if she was a member of UKIP! Forgive me, but I thought UKIP was a legitimate political party, so why was the NPS asking? Also during interview she was asked if she had ever refused to carry out an instruction from her Manager. Two good reasons (in my book) not to ever want to be in the NPS, regardless of how bad it is at present in the CRC. (and down here it is reaallllly bad........

******
Fully trained & certified (and used to supervise others) in use of all versions of RM2k, SARN, HCR20. Now, as a CRC PO, I'm told by OASys that I'm not authorised to complete such assessments.

******
Don't forget there will be a significant number of senior managers who have been accepted for EVR and will be leaving post share sale. I seem to recall the deal was to not work past June 2015? This was a big pot of money and we have not been told how much of it is committed. Personally I am hoping some is left for POs...

******
I'm one of those PO's that wouldn't even wait for the ink to dry.

******
Until recently there was no known method of saving the completed RSR.

******
I'm in a CRC and dislike it when I see comments that are posted about cuts to terms and conditions etc, as it comes across as smug even if that wasn't the intention. There were a few posts to that effect the other day and it was evident that tempers were starting to rise.

But please can we refrain from making comments about NPS colleagues being complacent as well? By all means post the link, but I for one feel the comment is unnecessary. We may not be in quite the same boat any more, but we're all still heading towards that bloody great Grayling-shaped iceberg.


******
Who reads OASys assessments anyway? POs aren't even countersigned. Why, as a PSO, am I doing full OASys on relatively minor offences with offence analysis not linked to harm. Why??

******
EXACTLY!! If I'm going to see one of my clients, then I don't need to read the OASys, because I wrote the damn thing. If I'm seeing someone else's case, then the pertinent information should be on the Delius(eless) records. If I need a longer term perspective, I'll read the PSR. OASys is just a time-consuming database for measuring targets - and even then only if information is put in in the 'right' way.

******
If it's true, as Allars, says, that performance has been maintained and the performance in new processes is improving in line with expectations, then are complaints about chaos and meltdown subjective and unrepresentative?

******
It is quite extraordinary that Allars and Payne have issued a document that indicates no fall off in performance. So how have all the practitioners who contribute here got it so wrong? We do the job, we are having to cope in this chaos and now we learn that we are liars too.

******
Performance has only been maintained because we change the dates on an OASys if it is out of time. Simple. We've probably got 1000's of these with dates changed. Allars you know this and are full of shit.

******
It's a deceit. Performance targets were amended to ensure they were met so no-one could say that TR compromised performance. Sleight of hand, a long standing strategy within the prison service. Count the beans differently and you meet the target. Great way of avoiding having to actually DO anything.

******
The Allars piece is incredibly patronising – the cheap rhetoric about being a 'learning service', as though TR was nothing more than a comprehension test, nothing to do with deep unease about the direction of travel and the fact that a JR has been submitted. In effect the Allars note tells you everything about his arrogant mindset. He is a cynical propagandist for the MoJ and his contempt for the workforce is palpable. What a shame the MoJ isn't a learning service, as maybe then it wouldn't waste millions on IT failures, wouldn't be fiddled left, right and centre by Serco and friends; and would actually listen to what criminal justice professionals say about TR. 

Allars knows all this but follows the democratic orders of his ideological boss. I understand these motivations and excuses, but sometimes, surely, conscience must kick in? I remember Spurr at an AGM a couple of years back justifying what he was doing by reference to the democratic mandate of ministers. The fact that he made this reference at all was because he could not stand in front of an audience and say I believe in what I am doing. And it's probably the same with Allars – 'Allars', as Harry Enfield might say: 'Shut up!'

******
"Allars knows all this but follows the democratic orders of his ideological boss". Yes, exactly. Shock, horror! He is a civil servant. His job is to implement the policy of the democratically elected government. That is exactly how it should be in a democracy. Like it or not, we have a system in which democratically elected politicians decide on public policy, not professionals (with all their vested interests) who no one elected and who are accountable to no one...

******
The number of people that have left the service and the high levels of sick leave throughout the service as well as the documentation being presented by judical review, tell a very different tale. But remember there's no crisis in the prison system either, despite a vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

******
They got rid of a number of performance targets recently, no where near as many as we used to have. Can someone confirm?

Thursday, 3 July 2014

Some Observations 21

Lets start this roundup of bits and pieces with some good news. Following on from the announcement that the government have decided not to proceed with the privatisation of child protection, as reported here on Left Foot Forward
The government has abandoned its plans to allow local authorities to award child protection services to private companies. The Department for Education’s (DfE) plans would have handed the safeguarding of many of the most vulnerable children in society to the likes of G4S, Serco and Atos, and it is a victory for common sense that they have been forced to back down.
Councils will still be able to outsource these services to charities and social enterprises if they so wish, but private firms will be barred from bidding the process. The DfE’s draft regulations that would have enabled councils to outsource childrens’ social services drew criticism from all angles. Leading social policy experts and child protection professionals expressed considerable concern at exposing children to the fickleness and failings of outsourcing giants, whilst We Own It, Social Enterprise UK, Compass and trade unions also condemned the plans to allow private companies to profit from the care of vulnerable children.
they have also ditched the plan to sell off HM Land Registry as reported here in the Money Mail:-
Controversial plans to privatise the Land Registry have been scrapped by the Government after a revolt by civil servants.
The sell-off had been expected to raise at least £1.2 billion for the Treasury, but an announcement in January that the move was being considered triggered a 48-hour strike by furious employees last month.
A source said the ‘staff issues’ had been a major stumbling point. Another problem was that the privatisation would have been ‘just too complicated’. The source said: ‘It would have involved new legislation.’
It's worth noting that an effective staff revolt and strike was involved, but of course it's also about timing. This close to the General Election, Business Secretary Vince Cable and the Lib Dems suddenly want to put some blue water between themselves and the Tories. Sadly, the timing was wrong for probation. 

But the march of privatisation continues, largely by stealth, in the NHS and orchestrated by GP's who now hold the purse strings by virtue of their dominance on Clinical Commissioning Groups and as reported here in the Guardian:-
Cancer care in the NHS could be privatised for the first time in the health service's biggest ever outsourcing of services worth over £1.2bn. A host of private healthcare firms have already expressed interest in securing a £689m, 10-year contract to provide cancer care at four NHS GP-led clinical commissioning group areas in Staffordshire. 
The four CCGs involved, which care for 767,000 patients, are also seeking bidders for a separate £535m contract to provide end-of-life care. Together the contracts are worth £1.22bn, much more than the previous record high of £500m, secured by Richard Branson's Virgin Care for providing various health services in Surrey.  
Virgin, Care UK, Ramsay Health and other private firms, many of which have increased their role in providing NHS care amid an expansion of competition driven by the coalition's NHS shake-up, have attended briefings run by the charity Macmillan Cancer Support, which is advising the four CCGs on the cancer contract.
It pains me to say this, but doctors have always been suspect since effectively holding the post-war Labour Government to ransom and demanding they be allowed to be private contractors, rather than employees, upon establishment of the NHS. Sadly, despite what most people might believe about our treasured NHS, creeping privatisation was assured as soon as private contractor GP's were put in charge of CCG's. 

The really appalling thing is that many MP's and Peers had vested interests in private health care companies when they voted on the legislation, and many GP's have connections to the same companies. No wonder this country comes 14th, just above Barbados and Hong Kong, on world perceptions of corruption in public services.   

I see that the National Audit Office have been hard at work looking into the fiasco Chris Grayling left behind at the DWP:-
After a poor start, the performance of the Work Programme is at similar levels to previous programmes but is less than original forecast. The Department has struggled to improve outcomes for harder-to-help groups. The Programme has the potential to offer value for money if it can achieve the higher rates of performance the Department now expects.

The Work Programme is also not working as the Department intended in the way it rewards contractors for performance. Flaws in contracts and performance measures have led to unnecessary and avoidable costs. The Department may have paid contractors £11 million in the period to March 2014 for performance they may not have actually achieved and could overpay contractors £25 million over the remainder of the Programme unless it changes its approach. The Department has recognised where it has needed to make changes to contracts. It has been actively negotiating with contractors to make improvements but it is not yet clear how much the Department will need to compensate contractors for changes.
It's a pretty damning analysis as reported here in the Guardian and serves to indicate the sort of thing that will be in store with the TR omnishambles:-
Welfare-to-work providers will receive undeserved bonuses of up to £25m even though they have failed to hit government targets for placing people in to long term jobs, official auditors have found.
The National Audit Office has discovered that flaws in work programme contracts meant that the Department for Work and Pensions is obliged to make incentive payments to even the worst performing providers. In a report released today, auditors also say the success rates of contractors has fallen. Around nine in every 10 claimants of employment and support allowance, who include many people with illnesses and disabilities, are failing to maintain a job.
The report is the latest damning assessment of Iain Duncan Smith's £2.8 billion programme which has been beset with problems since its inception in 2011.
The amount paid out in bonuses from the public purse is likely to be around £31 million in 2014-15, whereas a measure of performance more dependent on results would have triggered payments of just £6 million, according to the report. "Flawed contractual performance measures mean the department will have to make incentive payments to even the worst performing contractors," the report said.  
Talking of the Work Programme, I want to raise an issue that's been bothering me for some time, that concerning the creation of shit jobs. It's a phenomenon many of our clients are already familiar with, but of course with increasing privatisation and the 'reform' of public services, it's something that many more of us will probably be experiencing personally over the coming years of 'austerity'.

Take this example, recently brought to my attention. A woman found employment by a Work Programme provider with a community care company. She typically 'starts' work making domiciliary visits at 7.45am and 'finishes' at 9.45pm, but these times are meaningless to her employer because she only gets paid for 8 hours, ie only the time she actually attends to people in their home. She is not paid for her travelling time, by bus if necessary, and waiting time between addresses and appointments, and the cost is not reimbursed either. 

She is paid the minimum wage and had to 'contribute' £40 towards her enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. After 6 months, no wonder she feels utterly drained and worn out and ready to chuck it in, and who would blame her, despite the risk of getting a benefit sanction. 

But it's not just the shit jobs on barely minimum wages and zero-hour terms, it's the bullshit PR spin some of these employers put on it all. The employer in this instance is a 'social enterprise' in the North East called Casa 'Care and Share Associates' and their polished upbeat website 'putting people before profit' informs us thus:-
Care and Share Associates is a social enterprise which develops franchise companies in which the workforce are the owners. Employees are able to participate in the decisions that affect their working lives. In our experience, this produces a higher level of commitment to the organisation and to the quality of the services that we deliver, because every employee is supported to achieve their personal and professional best.
Our family of companies already delivers services in Knowsley, Leeds, Halifax, North Tyneside, Newcastle and Manchester.
As a social enterprise, our purpose is not to maximise profit. Our main commitment is to the communities we serve. This commitment means creating better jobs, supporting our employees’ professional development and offering a high quality, flexible service to those individuals who rely on us for their care needs.
High quality care and support is all about the workforce. What we have done is to find a way to tap into people's natural creativity and commitment, by giving them a stake in their business. CASA's approach to workforce planning is therefore about more than recruiting and training staff, it also means defining a positive workplace culture.
In developing innovative services we recognise that social care providers are now required to offer a range of support options beyond the traditional boundaries of residential, day and home care. As levels of demand for care and support continue to increase, CASA is determined to look ahead to new models of provision which will achieve cost savings whilst ensuring choice, control and dignity for individuals who use services. We have recently invested in additional capacity in quality management so that we can ensure a consistent approach to quality and outcomes across the whole group.
Our longer term strategic vision is to continue to expand and make a real difference in the social care sector.
All sounds pretty good doesn't it? In fact not unlike that favourite of the educated middle classes and Tory party the John Lewis Partnership. The trouble is they've 'outsourced' all their cleaning to facilities management companies employing people on minimum wages. The cynical failure to abide by the JLP principles laid down by the Founder has attracted the attention of several online campaigning groups with petitions attracting 50,000 signatures, as reported here in Marketing:-    
John Lewis is facing mounting pressure to pay its cleaners the living wage, as a petition lobbying the board burst through 50,000 signatures. The Change.org petition is asking John Lewis to pay its cleaners a living wage of £8.80 in London and £7.65 in the rest of the UK, and points out 650 companies including Nationwide and Tate & Lyle have already committed to the London Living Wage Foundation.
John Lewis and Waitrose staff are part of a partnership whereby they all receive an equal percentage bonus depending on how profitable the company is each year.
This year staff received a 14% bonus, but the cleaners do not receive the living wage and missed out on the bonus because they are contractors.
Last year the Living Wage Foundation pointed out the 3,000 cleaning staff missed out on a share of the £200m bonus pot. The change.org petition points out that John Lewis has contracted out its cleaning services despite positioning the brand as one that is committed to treating its suppliers, customers and partners with fairness.
It added: "Given John Lewis’s impressive profit levels, it is very troubling that it refuses to show moral leadership and pay its cleaners the living wage."
Finally, I'll end on this good news for Frances Crook and the Howard League in their battle for Judicial Review of certain aspects of Grayling's Legal Aid cuts:-
The Court of Appeal has today (Tuesday 1 July 2014) notified the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service of its decision to allow an appeal of the High Court’s decision to refuse the charities permission to judicially review the Lord Chancellors’ savage cuts to legal aid for prisoners. The original challenge was dismissed by the High Court on 17 March 2014, on the basis that the claim was not arguable. The Court of Appeal has granted the appeal on the basis that there are sufficient prospects of success.
The challenges concern the decision to cut most aspects of prison law from legal aid funding, leaving even young and mentally ill prisoners without legal protection and, in some cases, facing parole board reviews alone.
Postscript It's been pointed out to me that this youtube clip of Glenda Jackson MP savaging Iain Duncan Smith in the Commons the other day would fit rather well with today's post:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jckm3X5MXo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18

Saturday, 5 April 2014

More on Bidding

This is a key time as bidders try and decide whether to proceed or not, so here's a few more bits and pieces on the topic:-

Now Grayprils fools day is gone it's probably worth looking at whats really going on from a different perspective. Once upon a time Serco and G4S were the governments golden boys, but now sadly for them they're bruised and tired and known as dirty companies.

Then it was ATOS. They did great things curing more sick and disabled people then were cured by divine miracles at Lourdes. They for a while also dined at the top table with our neoliberal gods. Now? Towel thrown in, bloody nosed, and a corporate reputation that can only be described as toxic they're going back to France. All of these companies not only have been labelled filthy companies, but they've paid the government many millions of pounds for achieving that reputation.


More recently Buddi have looked to become that favoured child. But after years of trying and at considerable financial cost they decided to cut their losses and go. Losing time and money is one thing, but seeing the true cost of a government contract, they decided it just really wasn't worth it. The odd thing is that Buddi, unlike the others, have enhanced their corporate reputation by walking away. It's clear that whilst money's good, moral fibre, social values and ethics are priceless.


The favoured one at this moment in time would appear to be Capita. Tagging contract, and top of the pile for any new contracts awarded. Indeed their share price has risen recently because of the favour shown towards them by government.


But all is not as it seems. Local councils that have awarded them contracts are beginning to grumble loudly. Birmingham in fact are trying to oust them. They can do the same job themselves at a fraction of the cost that Capita charge. So how long before they start to feel the wrath of Whitehall, begin to reel from reputational damage, and be forced to hand back multiple millions of pounds? Who knows - but it's sure going to happen!


Government contracts? Be smart and leave well alone, don't get Graypril fooled.


***************
I have no doubt that Graylings plans took a massive hit when Serco and G4S were identified as very crooked companies. They would have taken most of the TR contracts as prime providers. With the withdrawal of many interested parties and bidders becoming so few, I'm left wondering if this move by Serco recently may have any significance towards TR?
Rupert Soames is joining Serco as its chief executive a month earlier than expected as the security giant looks to quickly rebuild its reputation in the electronic tagging scandal's wake. Serco said in a brief statement that Soames, who is the grandson of British wartime prime minister Winston Churchill, will now take the helm on May 1 rather than in June. He joins from his role as boss of energy firm Aggreko. The business is under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) after it emerged that the Ministry of Justice had been overcharged on Serco's contract to carry out the electronic tagging of criminals. In some cases it was alleged that taxpayers were billed for tagging work that was never carried out. Serco's rival G4S, another outsourcing firm, is also caught up in the scandal. When the SFO investigation was announced, Serco's then chief executive Christopher Hyman quit. Serco was subject to a ban on government contracts until early 2014 as a result of the tagging furore.

*************
I heard from someone working for a potential external bid team that they are concerned about the deals struck by the unions in terms of no redundancies and maintaining T&C's for a set period (obviously, as we all knew, part of their business model was to cut staff). Also, concerns about a dissatisfied work force (highlighted by this weeks strike), and the potential union involvement at a later date if job changes etc take place.

I doubt the main players will have these concerns, they'll just ride roughshod over people. But a lack of competition may leave scope for the unions to make waves; the likelihood is the proposed CRC services will be scaled back when they realise they don't have to offer so much (and thereby reduce their profit) to win a bid for the contracts. 


Then there's this continuing problem for A4E as reported in the Daily Mail:-
Four former employees of scandal-hit welfare-to-work firm A4E admitted swindling taxpayers yesterday. The guilty pleas follow a police investigation into the troubled company which is paid more than £200m by the Government each year. 
All four were arrested after the Daily Mail revealed concerns about taxpayer-funded employment schemes run by A4E two years ago. The company was employed by the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver an employment and training scheme called 'Inspire to Aspire'. It pocketed huge sums from the public purse for getting people off benefits by delivering training and helping people to find work.
But Whitehall officials called in police over concerns that staff were billing taxpayers for 'successful' work that was not carried out or for non-existent clients. A whistleblower claimed forged signatures and blank timesheets were 'routine' techniques used for bumping up the numbers of successful job placements. The four former A4E recruiters admitted a total of 32 offences during a hearing at Reading Crown Court yesterday.
All the offences took place between over four years until February 2013. No date has been set for the former employees to be sentenced. They each face up to 10 years in prison. The A4E controversy began in February 2012 when it was revealed that its founder Emma Harrison had paid herself £8.6 million. Damaging allegations followed that workers at the firm were inappropriately claiming 'success' fees, sometimes for individuals who worked for no more than 24 hours. Officers from Thames Valley Police's economic crime unit searched its headquarters in Slough, Berkshire, as politicians called for a full inquiry.
The furore forced Mrs Harrison, worth an estimated £70 million, to step down as chairman and resign from her role as David Cameron's 'back to work tsar'. Mrs Harrison remains the majority shareholder after building up the company, formerly called Action For Employment, into an operation spanning 11 countries. Her boasts that she can find jobs for the long-term unemployed have won her a string of lucrative Whitehall contracts over the past 20 years. A4e is one of several contractors which earn payments for helping the out-of-work find a job. Half of its work is subcontracted to charities, generating millions in management fees. A further eight former A4E employees, aged between 25 and 43, are expected to go on trial in October accused of fraud.
To ordinary citizens it seems incredible that any government would even consider giving yet more contracts to companies whose employees have been proved to be involved in systemic fraud that benefits the company rather than the individuals directly. This is what the Public Contract Regulations 2006 says:-  
Criteria for the rejection of economic operators

23. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a contracting authority shall treat as ineligible and shall not select an economic operator in accordance with these Regulations if the contracting authority has actual knowledge that the economic operator or its directors or any other person who has powers of representation, decision or control of the economic operator has been convicted of any of the following offences—

(a) conspiracy within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 where that conspiracy relates to participation in a criminal organisation as defined in Article 2(1) of Council Joint Action 98/733/JHA;

(b) corruption within the meaning of section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889) or section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906;

(c ) the offence of bribery;

(d) fraud, where the offence relates to fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Communities as defined by Article 1 of the Convention relating to the protection of the financial interests of the European Union, within the meaning of—

(i) the offence of cheating the Revenue;

(ii) the offence of conspiracy to defraud;

(iii) fraud or theft within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 and the Theft Act 1978;

Finally, I saw this interesting observation on facebook which rather neatly sums up the dilemma for NPS-bound colleagues:-
So I started reading the Becoming a Civil Servant Guide this morning...I managed to get to point 2 before wanting to throw it in the fire....Not convinced I want to come back to the UK and resume with NPS anymore!

"2. The duty of the individual civil servant is first and foremost to the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Department in which he or she is serving. In the context of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the Ministry of Justice, this is the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling."

Friday, 28 March 2014

Omnishambles Update 42

As the strike on Monday and Tuesday rapidly approaches, I thought the following email from Pat Waterman, Chair of Napo Greater London Branch to CEO Heather Munro was interesting. She copied it to all London staff:-

Dear Heather

Last time we went on strike you wrote in your blog that:

I will not be taking action personally as I need to ensure that the organisation can operate safely, protecting those staff who continue to work and ensure we are managing the risk our offenders pose. I do understand however staff's wish to take action, demonstrating to the MoJ the strength of feeling in the service about the changes ahead.

In your blog this week you advised us all that you are going to Italy this weekend. While you are on holiday my members will be going on strike again to defend the trust against the plans of this government to abolish it and put much of our work out to tender.

You have spent your entire career in the public probation service and, while I do not expect you to join our action, you might wish to consider donating a day and a half's wages to the NAPO Strike Fund to help support all those who are willing to defend the service. We are fighting to SAVE THE PROBATION SERVICE. Please help us.

Pat Waterman
Chair


According to twitter conversations I've seen, the solicitors are pretty annoyed at their colleagues at the criminal bar agreeing a deal with Grayling, and it seems to be borne out by this on the Legal Futures website:-
Civil war broke out among criminal defence lawyers yesterday in the wake of a deal struck between the government and the Criminal Bar Association. The Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) accused the Bar’s leadership of using “the unity of the profession to pursue self-interest in a separate secret negotiation”. As a result of the agreement, the CBA has suspended its direct action: the ‘no returns’ policy which meant that barristers would not accept briefs where the original advocate has had to return it, and the refusal to handle very high-cost cases (VHCCs) since fees were cut 30% in December, which 41 barristers have already done. In return, the government has agreed to suspend the 6% cut to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme until after next year’s election and take account of the recommendations of the various ongoing reviews of the criminal justice system and criminal advocacy.
CBA chairman Nigel Lithman QC said: “This gives 89% of the criminal Bar (those that do not do VHCCs) what they have demanded and has been achieved by their resolve.” On VHCCs, he said that “whilst it is for each individual barrister to choose what work they undertake, there is no objection in principle to barristers who want to work on VHCCs undertaking such cases if they choose to do so”. Mr Lithman welcomed the government’s agreement to work with the profession to consider better alternatives to the VHCC scheme, adding at the end of his statement that “the CBA remains supportive of the stance taken by solicitors”. The only concession offered by the government to solicitors was that an interim payment scheme – aimed at helping firms’ cash flow – will be introduced this summer, a year earlier than planned, at a cost of £9m.
By doing a separate deal with the barristers it looks like Grayling has just made the solicitors more determined and most certainly 'up for it' on Monday and Tuesday. Talking of Grayling, the prisoner book ban continues cause him loads of bad publicity from all parts of the political spectrum and now includes HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick. Here he is talking to the Independent:-
The Government's blanket ban on books being sent to prisoners is a “mistake” and the policy should be changed, the Chief Inspector of Prisons has said.
In an interview with The Independent, Nick Hardwick said preventing harmless items such as books from entering the country's jails was unnecessary “micro-management” by politicians. Decisions on what prisoners can receive from outside should be left to the discretion of individual prison governors, he added. His comments will come as a blow to the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, who has so far dismissed growing objections to the policy, saying he is determined to bring “right wing solutions to bear on social problems where the Left has palpably failed”.
Mr Hardwick said that while the basic intention of the Government's policy was “sound”, aspects of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme - which places strict limitations on what prisoners can receive in the post and keep in their cells - were “not sensible” and “haven't worked out in the way ministers intended”.
“The problem in this case… is trying to micro-manage this from the centre, with the centre describing very detailed lists of what prisoners can and can't have,” he said. “I think that's a mistake. I think that once the policy intention is clear, how that's implemented should be left much more to the discretion and the common sense of governors, so that they can reflect the needs of their particular prison population.” Mr Grayling has come under mounting pressure to re-examine the policy since the issue was raised earlier this week by Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, in a critical article for a political website.
Her comments were picked up by author Mark Haddon, who galvanised Britain's literary establishment to speak out in protest. On Tuesday Alan Bennett, Sir Salman Rushdie, Julian Barnes, Ian McEwan, Carol Ann Duffy and other respected writers signed a letter condemning the ban.
While on the subject of Grayling, here he is in the Guardian talking about judicial review and campaigning groups:-
Campaign groups are undermining parliament by launching too many court challenges aimed at overturning government policy and avoiding costs by hiding behind "human shields", the justice secretary has said. In his clearest rationalisation so far of why judicial review cases should be limited, Chris Grayling accused pressure groups of exploiting costly legal procedures to delay legislation, planning permissions and deportation decisions.
"We have seen [judicial review] being used as a tactical tool rather than a vehicle for an individual to right a wrong," Grayling told the House of Lords constitutional committee. "Increasingly it's being used a political campaigning tool. It's trying to bypass … the political process.
"We are seeing pressure groups who are there to campaign and this is one of the tools that they use. We are trying to limit the human shield strategy where a campaign group finds an individual who has no resources of their own and rows in behind them. If the case is lost, there's no risk to the campaign group itself.
"My belief is that, to a degree I find quite unacceptable, it's either being used to delay or to try to challenge … a legitimate decision taken by the government and endorsed by parliament. We have no intention of getting rid of judicial review but I don't believe it should be a campaigning tool or a delaying tool." Even claims that were turned down imposed heavy costs on government lawyers and the courts, he said.
The justice secretary's comments come as the criminal justice and courts bill, which aims to limit public funding for judicial reviews, goes through parliament. One clause introduces the novel concept that courts can refuse cases if it appears "highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred". Critics have warned that it will force judges to engage in abstract speculation.
There really is no doubt where a chap like Grayling is coming from. It was a few weeks ago, but here he is telling the Civil Society website that charities do too much campaigning and should just get on with being like businesses:-
The charity sector is putting too much emphasis on campaigning and not enough on service delivery, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told an audience of charity leaders last night. Speaking at a social welfare debate in London, organised by the Lord Mayor’s Charity Leadership Programme, Grayling said there was currently discussion about how much weight should be given to three issues – contracting, fundraising and campaigning.
“I disagree strongly with the campaigning side,” he said. “People talk about the amount MPs are lobbied by big business. But I would say that there is 20 to 30 times as much lobbying from the charitable sector, perhaps even more. I see there are big national organisations with active, well-funded campaigning groups at the centre, but with cash-strapped branches trying to provide services on the ground in communities, and I think 'are you sure you've got the balance right?'
“From the point of view of a constituency MP it doesn't feel right at all.” Grayling also said that the sector had to adapt in order to contract with government.
“The sector itself has to behave a reasonably commercial way,” he said. “If you want to win a government contract, you’ve got to be able to do a genuine business deal. We try to facilitate opportunities for the sector but we can't provide it on a plate.” He said the lesson he had taken from the Work Programme and Transforming Rehabilitation was that the sector needed to build more commercial skills, and that he had explained this lesson to Acevo, the NCVO and to contracting organisations. He said that change was inevitable for charities, because previous government methods of engaging with the sector had been too inefficient.
“In both of these programmes the social sector is enormously important, both for big organisations like Tomorrow's People and the Shaw Trust, and smaller niche organisations,” he said. “We've tried to create a level playing field.” But he said the sector also had to change to meet government’s needs.
“Before the Work Programme the Department for Work and Pensions contracted with 1,200 charities,” he said. “With the best will in the world that's not really terribly viable. It's much more difficult to manage large numbers of charities.”
Grayling said he did not agree with criticism from members of the audience who said they could not afford to become involved in payment-by-results programmes which took a long time before they paid out to contractors. “I don’t believe payment-by-results puts any constraints on the sector,” he said.
He said that charities should be able to get funding from prime contractors who had the balance sheet to fund smaller organisations during delivery, or they should be able to attract social investment to fund a payment-by-results contract.
But lets end this on yet another health warning to all potential bidders for probation work out there, and I do understand that your number is getting smaller by the day:-

I had my TR training this week and have some real concerns about the vulnerable position the bidders will be in. Do they realise that the main part of their business they have no control over? Relying on NPS staff to correctly allocate to CRC. If I were a bidder I would want some remuneration written into my contract for the occasions when this goes wrong as it will take time and resources to correct. 

Also, are bidders aware that the cases suitable for NPS / CRC can be changed by the government changing the offences listed on Schedule 15 (again) thereby making them MAPPA or not? Have they seen the case studies used in the training? I would certainly be asking to see these before putting in a bid!! Rapists, theft from person including use of weapon, the list goes on - all in CRCs! 

Also, the escalation of risk tool needs to be completed by someone who knows what they are talking about in terms of risk - it is going to cost them to employ such individuals. All I can say is bidders beware.

PS - Bidders would also do well to look at the history of Atos who have simply given up on their contract and walked away having had enough of dealing with difficult government work, as reported here by the BBC:-
The firm Atos, which assesses whether benefit claimants in Britain are fit to work, is to finish its contract early, ministers have confirmed. It follows government criticism over "significant quality failures". Disabilities Minister Mike Penning said a new company would be appointed in early 2015, and Atos would not receive "a single penny of compensation".
Atos had been due to finish in August 2015. It said the settlement was "in the best interests of all parties". It also said it would "work hard to support transition to a new provider", adding: "We will be transferring our infrastructure and employees to ensure consistency of service to those going through the process. "There will be no change for those applying for Employment and Support Allowance." Last month, Atos said it was seeking to end its government contract under which it carried out the Work Capability Assessments.