Private firms to take over probation work

[Mecky 10]

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, it seems the probation serive is now to be privatised. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20953644. G4S anyone?

[mumkin 10]

Private companies and charitable bodies successfully bidding for contracts will be paid according to their results in cutting re-offending.

 

That's a good thing yes??

 

 

However, the public probation service will continue to supervise some 50,000 high-risk offenders, including all serious violent and sexual offenders.

 

So not ALL the probation service as you implied

[taxman 12]

Maybe A4E could tender for some of the work, given what excellent results they've had in getting the long term unemployed back into work in exchange for shedloads of taxpayers cash.

[alchresearch 214]

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, it seems the probation serive is now to be privatised. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20953644. G4S anyone?

 

Do you have any evidence that this will be a bad thing?

 

Did you read the case study on your own link?

[Mecky 10]

Private companies and charitable bodies successfully bidding for contracts will be paid according to their results in cutting re-offending.

 

That's a good thing yes??

 

So they'll go bust in a year then?

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 12:38 ----------

 

Do you have any evidence that this will be a bad thing?

 

Did you read the case study on your own link?

 

Give me an example of where a private business has come in and run a better service than which the public sector previously did.

[Moosey 10]

Give me an example of where a private business has come in and run a better service than which the public sector previously did.

 

Private healthcare.

Private schools.

 

Experienced both sides of both examples, and the private sector is far, far superior. Neither took over from the public sector equivalent but that isn't happening with probation either, so the comparison is valid.

[WeX 10]

If the probation service was cost effective, then we would not need private companies to come in and take over. However I do find this one a step too far. Who is going to bet the criteria for high risk cases will steadily go up until these private companies are only working with tax avoiders and copyright thieves while the reduced probation service ends up with the majority of cases.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 13:20 ----------

 

give me an example of where a private business has come in and run a better service than which the public sector previously did.

 

bt ....... ?

[Mecky 10]

If the probation service was cost effective, then we would not need private companies to come in and take over. However I do find this one a step too far. Who is going to bet the criteria for high risk cases will steadily go up until these private companies are only working with tax avoiders and copyright thieves while the reduced probation service ends up with the majority of cases.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 13:20 ----------

 

 

bt ....... ?

 

If the probabtion service if not cost effective why would a private comapny come in and take over?

[LeMaquis 10]

Give me an example of where a private business has come in and run a better service than which the public sector previously did.

 

The Major government started PFI. Labour carried it on under Blair and Brown and now the coalition is keeping it going. Labour has been just as enthusiastic about the private sector taking over the public sector as the Tories. Labour is still quite happy with PFI. I can't see you scoring party-political points on this one.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059

[Supertramp 10]

If the probabtion service if not cost effective why would a private comapny come in and take over?

 

Because they can make it cost effective because they don't have people striking every week.

[WeX 10]

If the probabtion service if not cost effective why would a private comapny come in and take over?

 

to make it cost effective maybe?

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 14:17 ----------

 

The Major government started PFI. Labour carried it on under Blair and Brown and now the coalition is keeping it going. Labour has been just as enthusiastic about the private sector taking over the public sector as the Tories. Labour is still quite happy with PFI. I can't see you scoring party-political points on this one.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059

 

Oppenheimer invented the nuclear bomb, but that doesn't make him responsible for Hiroshima. Majors government may have started the whole PFI system, but Labour took that and ran with it. Especially when they ran out of money and wanted to look as though they where investing in public services etc.

[altus 537]

If the probation service was cost effective, then we would not need private companies to come in and take over. However I do find this one a step too far. Who is going to bet the criteria for high risk cases will steadily go up until these private companies are only working with tax avoiders and copyright thieves while the reduced probation service ends up with the majority of cases.

More likely private companies would refuse to handle the worst repeat offenders - what company being paid by results (even if only partly) would want to take on someone they had almost no chance of making a profit from. These offenders would then get handled by the remnants of the probation service which would have to suffer unfair 'the private sector have more success at reforming people who commit crime X' type comparisons.