Is Saving £21000 Per Year Good
Family & Relationships0 min ago
Care Home In Kent
Did anyone see the Program regards the abuse in this Young offenders home in Kent On Monday ( Panorama 8.30pm)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have worked in this environment many years ago and realize it could be a difficult/violent environment this was before training in control and restraint (not called that anymore). Some of the techniques we used were dangerous to the client with hindsight but we never resulted to violence. Nowadays I thought things would of improved but obviously not. The blame should always be with the staff and management. There are many techniques that can be taught to staff in deesculation techniques, staffing levels should be such to manage situations, management should be liaising with staff to see if there are any problems, bad staff should be retrained or sacked etc. We employed agency staff that worked in prisons (screws) who I was very impressed by.
It isn't as simple as merely blaming the G4S management (for not knowing what was going on).
This contract has been set up with performance deductions, such that the monthly contractual sum can have payments taken away from G4S if certain targets are not met.
One of the targets is no instances of fighting between 'customers', or 'customers' attacking the custody officers.
That's a completely ridiculous target to set any contractor in these circumstances, in particular because the contractor has limited ability to control it, and the customers are inherently troublesome little chaps who undoubtedly know that G4S has this penalty regime running on them.
Already, so the idea behind it is that the contractor establishes a working regime that encourages cooperation of the troublesome little chaps, but that's easier said than done.
Easy therefore to see how the easy way out of the operations people is to instil fear to quash potential trouble.
You can probably blame consultants for thinking those performance penalty parameters - far too clever to think the Youth Justice Board derived them.
Not the whole problem, but G4S were stupid to accept the performance regime terms.
This contract has been set up with performance deductions, such that the monthly contractual sum can have payments taken away from G4S if certain targets are not met.
One of the targets is no instances of fighting between 'customers', or 'customers' attacking the custody officers.
That's a completely ridiculous target to set any contractor in these circumstances, in particular because the contractor has limited ability to control it, and the customers are inherently troublesome little chaps who undoubtedly know that G4S has this penalty regime running on them.
Already, so the idea behind it is that the contractor establishes a working regime that encourages cooperation of the troublesome little chaps, but that's easier said than done.
Easy therefore to see how the easy way out of the operations people is to instil fear to quash potential trouble.
You can probably blame consultants for thinking those performance penalty parameters - far too clever to think the Youth Justice Board derived them.
Not the whole problem, but G4S were stupid to accept the performance regime terms.
