New study of the enforced migration of probation staff from public service to private company and the effects on their professional & personal identities.
You can find all posts citing your tag below
Tags are what WordPress calls is keywords. I attach a small number of tags to every post to help people navigate between content with the same keywords. Tags may be people (David Gauke say), organisations (The Howard League, Revolving Doors Agency), themes (women offenders, homelessness) or specific items (heroin, cocaine, ROTL). If you’re looking to research a particular issue, they can be invaluable.
Provocative and stimulating article by Professor Wendy Fitzgibbon on whether private probation will focus on innovation or cost cutting.
Reform Think Tank urges complete privatisation of probation with local devolution of offender management to Police and Crime Commissioners.
Once Michael Gove publishes more details of the nine new prisons he intends to build and we know for sure that they will be PFI, we can start testing out the Chancellor’s claim that the prison estate will be £80 million a year cheaper to run.
It should be remembered that “Policing for a Better Britain” was commissioned by the Labour Party and it is, therefore, no surprise to see the issue of privatisation tackled head-on. The report is not against privatisation but recommends that outsourcing should only be considered by reference to five key principles:
It’s getting increasingly difficult to have a productive debate about payment by results. For many people, PbR is merely shorthand for the privatisation or even a backdoor way of funneling public funds into multinational companies. For others, it is a potentially exciting approach to commissioning public services which can drive innovation and improved performance. But whether you love PbR or hate it, the main reason why it’s difficult to have a meaningful discussion is the lack of any evidence base. This post is my take on 10 critical success factors for PbR.
Mervyn Barrett is an independent candidate to be Lincolnshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner (the election is on 15 November 2012). Highly regarded for his background in crime prevention, commentators wondered where he was getting the money to run such a high-profile and expensive campaign. On Saturday (20th October), his entire campaign team resigned ahead of a story in Sunday’s Telegraph saying that his campaign “was being secretly backed by American neo-conservative lobbyists and companies pushing
There’s plenty of discussion about payment by results both online and at conferences and seminars. But one aspect that is rarely mentioned is how to encourage staff to engage in the debate and get them to at least consider the potential of the PbR approach. Many front-line workers (@TheCustodySgt has written a great post on who exactly front line staff are) in the statutory and voluntary sectors instinctively respond to all mentions of PbR as if it is
What does the future hold for payment by results initiatives in 2012? PbR is fast becoming a key component of the Coalition Government project, generating increasing amounts of media coverage. The payments by results scheme to tackle “problem families” received hundreds of column inches, although most clued-up commentators were quick to argue that the headline £200 million funding was not all new money. In terms of criminal justice PbR schemes, with which this blog is
Last week I posted apoll to try to gauge attitudes to payment by results by those sufficiently interested in the subject to read this Blog. For reasons that I go into in a comment on that post, the poll bombed. Most people either weren’t interested or were very wary about voicing an opinion, even in an anonymised format. I offered five possible answers to the poll question ‘What do you think of PbR?’: A great opportunity