Probation and Privatisation by Philip Bean

Author:Philip Bean [Bean, Philip]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Criminology, Penology
ISBN: 9781351134491
Google: TUNvDwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2018-10-10T04:47:12+00:00

2. Opening up the market to a diverse range of providers

Returning to those five aims listed above, the second was to open up the market to a diverse range of providers. This means granting contracts to the private companies who were the successful bidders, and for the companies to extend their range of activities. CRCs have been recruited from three major sources: the private sector, the voluntary sector, and charities. These, for example, are the successful CRCs in different areas of England:

Bedfordshire, Northants, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The CRCs were Sodexo in partnership with NACRO.

Derbyshire, Leicestershire Nottinghamshire and Rutland. The CRC was with The Redwing Reoffending Partnership.

London. The CRC was MTC Novo in partnership with 6 other companies. MTC Novo is in joint partnership with RISE a probation staff community interest company, Band of Brothers a Charity, Manchester College a public sector provider, Sanctuary Supported Living a social landlord, Thames Valley Partnership a Charity and Amey a private Company.

The new contracts involve 3 Levels of potential providers. Level 1, the top level is for the owners of the CRCs who are the lead providers. Levels 2 and 3 are for the others who are more akin to subcontractors. Each CRC will be expected to develop its own supply chain consisting of these subcontractors. The difference between those listed in Levels 2 and 3 is such that Level 2 is likely to be for larger voluntary sector organisations, and Level 3 for the smaller ones. It is not altogether clear what this means in practice, nor does it seem particularly relevant. It is a complicated structure, difficult to understand and probably difficult to manage.

Incidentally, as part of the bidding process bidders were asked to suggest ways of reducing costs. Those most often identified were about replacing inefficient technologies, implementing mobile working practices for reporting, and introducing more group work, the latter called the “cohort model” of working. They also identified other inefficiencies within the public sector, none of which were contentious. Others however were, especially those involving what was called “implementing mobile working practices.” This was a coded way of saying they planned to introduce electronic kiosks for offenders reporting to their Probation Officers – a suggestion which later brought forth some highly critical comments from the Probation Inspectorate.

Changes began in June 2013. The first hint of what was to come was from a leaked risk register compiled by the Ministry of Justice. It said contracts for the new rehabilitation companies would be awarded by the beginning of October 2014. These contracts would, it was said, open up the market to a diverse range of new rehabilitative providers, aimed at getting the best out of the public, voluntary, and private sectors at both local and national level. On the 31st March 2014 the government announced that existing probation trusts would be replaced by a National Probation Service dealing with the highest risk offenders. The majority of other offenders would be transferred to the newly created Community Rehabilitation Companies, which were to be companies formed by the Ministry of Justice.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.