Examination of Witnesses (Questions 780
- 799)
TUESDAY 21 APRIL 1998
MR HARRY
FLETCHER, MS
HELEN SCHOFIELD
AND MR
RICHARD BARTON
780. Are you aware of any recruitment problems
at the moment?
(Ms Schofield) There is a huge recruitment problem
at the moment because there is no money in the service to pay
the staff the probation service would like to appoint. Probation
services are making staff redundant, that is a simple fact, not
yet probation officers, there is a considerable attempt to protect
probation officers, but many probation officers have gone out.
The majority of the service over 50 is thinking very seriously
about leaving on early retirement.
Chairman
781. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians?
(Mr Fletcher) Of course.
(Ms Schofield) Yes.
782. Surely you will save money, if and when
something is done about it, when you get rid of the 54 regions?
It will hopefully be ploughed back into the service?
(Ms Schofield) With respect, the crisis is now. It
is not entirely clear how long any structural change might take.
The crisis is imminent in terms of staffing levels. We are reaching
a situation now in some services, and I do not think anybody would
be unhappy about my saying this, in which in order to sustain
the intensive programme and to maintain national standards the
actual supervision of individuals, particularly after the first
three months, is being undertaken by staff who are not probation
officers, and in some services by volunteers. In terms of public
protection, I feel the supervision of offenders by volunteers,
untrained, unpaid, unqualified, unaccountable, is extremely serious.
I know that is happening in some areas because of staffing cuts.
I know volunteers are being brought in to work in place of probation
officers in the courts in some areas. This is partly in response
to cuts, partly as a consequence of restructuring and there not
being enough people left to continue to do the other work. It
links in with the question you were raising with Mr Barton about
sustaining the success rate of the What Works programme.
We are talking about offenders for whom if we make some significant
change under a programme which lasts perhaps 12 weeks, you have
to sustain that, you cannot say, "He is okay now", you
have to continue to sustain that throughout the order. You may
have to look at another programme in terms of the responsivity
issue, the right person needing to do the right programme at the
right time. There may be something else you need to do. One programme
per person at the beginning of the order may not be sufficient
to really make a difference, and we simply have not got the resources
for that kind of support at the moment.
Mr Allan
783. So you see a clear conflict then between
the whole What Works agenda, the national standards, and
the resources you have to work with? The two just do not work
together?
(Ms Schofield) I think the What Works initiative
is a very important initiative but actually it also can be seen
to fail, ironically, if it is not supported by consistent supervision
afterwards and sufficient resources to get the proper assessment.
I do not know if you are aware but the probation service very
rarely succeeds in visiting people at home when they are assessing
them for court appearances now. That is partly a risk issue, because
people have learned that it is not necessarily wise and safe to
go into the home of an individual offender they have never met
before alone—there can be quite serious consequences—so
it is wise for two people to go if the person is not known at
all. Even if the person is known, what tends to happen now is
that they will be seen in the office once, if it is quite a serious
offence they will be seen twice. Now in our view everybody should
be seen twice for a pre-sentence report and, if possible, they
should be seen at home because I do not know how you check whether
people are telling you the truth, whether people are actually
levelling with you, if you do not go and talk to the people they
live with. If you are dealing with domestic violence, how do you
know whether you are hearing the truth unless you look around,
use your antennae, use your senses, use your intelligence, your
professional knowledge and judgment in the home? These things
are seriously resource-intensive and the service is not able to
do that as much as it would want at the moment. We recently surveyed
many services and some simply do not do home visits, which I think
is very lamentable.
(Mr Fletcher) Could I add that we are not talking
large numbers here. A probation officer from Merseyside lobbied
me yesterday and said, "Harry, when you go down and see those
MPs in London tell them the Merseyside caseload has gone up from
early 40s to 55, 60. We are not talking large numbers. We could
put the problem right, we could have relief across Merseyside,
if there were just another 12 or 15 officers." So we are
not talking a massive amount of money here, it is just really
restoring some or all, if possible, the cuts which have been imposed
since 1995.
(Mr Barton) Much of the literature and research on
What Works and the methods of effective supervision and
how you target those areas of criminal behaviour which we know
we can change, talks about an optimum number of contact hours
with offenders. Certainly in the area I work in we are about to
embark on a set of new programmes addressing those issues and,
from a resource point of view, we simply have not got enough probation
officers to meet that optimum number of contact hours, so the
programmes we are delivering will actually be reduced in the number
of hours we can offer, and that is in the face of the recent cut
of just about 10 per cent of our staff numbers in the last three
months; we have lost almost 10 per cent of our staff since December.
784. So now you have been told what works but
you cannot deliver it?
(Mr Barton) We can deliver some of it. There is an
element that lack of resources concentrates the mind, in the sense
that we are looking at much more focus, much more consistent methods
and strategic methods of working with offenders than perhaps we
did before. So in that sense the focus of the work has become
a lot more consistent and a lot more strategic, if you like. But
in terms of the optimum contact hours with offenders, we simply
have not got enough people to do it.
Mr Linton
785. I wanted to follow up the point about staffing
because public services do not always deteriorate when budgets
are squeezed. In fact Mr Smith said at one point that he saw no
evidence that quality had declined over the last few years. I
was rather interested to see whether you were going to pick that
up at the beginning as the thing to disagree with, but you did
not. Are you now saying that the decline in staffing levels has
led to a decline in the effectiveness, or do you concede some
of the points that Mr Smith was making that the service has become
more effective?
(Mr Barton) Mr Smith's department is on the point
of inspecting the area I work in and I am sure we will be having
some discussions with him about that. In fact Jane Furniss is
one of the inspectors who will be doing the inspection and I anticipate
some discussions on that precise issue. I think there is no question
that the quality we are able to offer is not as good as it could
be if we had not had the staff cuts we have suffered. Having said
that, I agree there is an issue about looking at methods of working
and being more systematic about how we do work, and that happens
within an area and across the 54 services as well. There is a
much more systematic approach to introducing some of the effective
methods of supervision now than perhaps there was ten years ago.
But I think it is indisputable that anyone who loses 10 per cent
of their staff will not be able to offer the same quality of service
they would be if they had those staff still.
786. So there is an element generally of producing,
through increases in efficiency, the same with less resources?
(Mr Barton) There has been an element of a more systematic
approach to the work, but I think that has been squeezed beyond
all measure of improvement now.
787. Can I distinguish that question, of doing
the same work with less, from the other question, which is whether
there should not be a move towards more use of intensive probation?
The evidence we have had so far, and the experience we have had
around the country, shows the biggest cut in reconviction rates
is always where there is more intensive probation, which presumably
means higher levels of staff per case?
(Mr Barton) I think that is true, but there is also
evidence that some of the less intensive programmes are effective
as well. For instance, some car crime programmes where offenders
will come in one day a week and will follow a structured car crime
programme, there is evidence to show that those are effective
in reducing car crime, particularly amongst the younger offenders
who are traditionally the ones who will re-offend more frequently,
so I think in terms of intensive programmes, if you are referring
to programmes where offenders will come in two or three times
a week, that is very much the sort of top end of the seriousness
range. There is still, I think, a lot of scope for doing a lot
more effective work on perhaps a once- a-week basis, if you like.
I do not like to be mechanistic about it because it is not necessarily
the right way of looking at it, but I think there is a lot of
evidence to show that we can be equally effective in reducing
some of those reconviction rates as well.
(Ms Schofield) I think one of the other difficulties
in looking at the impact of cuts at the moment is that many services
have restructured completely what they do and how they do it in
the last two to three years, so it is very difficult to say whether
the quality of what you did has changed or has fallen because
actually in the face of cuts and in the face of evidence about
"What Works", they have radically restructured in terms
of the way supervision is organised which is completely different.
Now, we know enough about the work that is being introduced now
to know that it can be significantly more effective, but we also
know that it is going to need supporting and it is going to need
better assessment, so it is hard to say, "Well, yes, it has
just fallen off. We know that it is not as good as it was",
but in some ways it is probably better, but in order to be really
good, it is going to need supporting and really accurate assessment
at the beginning in order that we do not look at "What Works"
in a sense in two years' time and say, "Well, that didn't
work, did it?" which would be tragic.
Mr Cranston
788. Just to follow up this point because obviously
Liberal Democrat colleagues always make these points and collude
with people who want more resources, but specifically can I ask
you about group programmes? They must involve fewer resources
than having to see people on an individual basis, so these group
programmes which are more effective actually involve less resources.
(Ms Schofield) Yes, and precisely the point I am trying
to make is that that is why the services have restructured in
order to get, if you like, more out of the staff that they have
got and of course they know that the evaluated, accredited group
programmes, intensive programmes, are effective, but what you
also need are people who can pick up the ones who do not turn
up, you need people who can do the thorough assessment to make
sure that we have got the right people in the programme and when
the group programme stops, you need people who can keep on seeing
them. The group programmes on their own are not enough. They are
a very important development, but they need properly shoring up.
789. I think I have made my political point,
Chairman.
(Mr Barton) I think also it is something of a truism
to say that group work is less resource-intensive than individual
work because although you may have eight offenders in the room
and two probation officers or ten offenders, whereas you would
otherwise normally have a one-to-one, you cannot just treat those
ten offenders as a group, but they will all ten have their own
different issues. Say, for instance, it is a car crime group,
all the research shows that you cannot just address the car crime,
but you need to address things like accommodation, training, employment,
relationship problems, all those other factors which feed into
crime and people's commission of crime and you cannot deal with
those en bloc in a group, so the effective programmes are
ones where there is a good structured group work programme, but
there is individual work going on alongside that with those offenders
to address those other issues as well and that is quite resource
intensive.
Mr Malins
790. Could I spend a moment or two on the perceptions
of the Probation Service and community service from the point
of view of the sentencer? We have seen some figures which are
quite worrying which suggest that not enough lay magistrates,
stipes, recorders and judges actually have visited probation centres
to see "What Works" and community service projects and
do you not think it would be a good idea if more did and how can
you achieve it?
(Mr Fletcher) Absolutely.
(Ms Schofield) I think we would agree with you and
we would also want to say that not so much visiting, but actually
giving information to sentencers, to lay magistrates, stipendiary
magistrates, written information, and part of the argument that
led to the Community Sentence Demonstration Project was a sense
that the sentencers were not reading the information that they
were given, so that actually we suddenly realised that sentencers
were saying, "We do not know what happens when people are
put on probation", and actually they should because the information
is all there in the retiring room and they have to read it. I
think it is an absolute requirement on sentencers that they should
know what is going to happen, that (a) they should have been told
by the Service in clear terminology and—
791. I know the problem and you know the problem,
but what is the answer to that problem? How are we going to get
sentencers to go?
(Ms Schofield) I think we probably had a better success
rate when there was more time to put into the liaison with sentencers,
but even then you probably only got the ones who were interested
to go out on visits in a sense.
792. Every sentencer has to go on a judicial
studies course seminar; it is compulsory.
(Ms Schofield) Indeed.
793. Would it not be a good thing for sentencers
to have to go for a day or two a year to see the community service
work and the probation work?
(Mr Fletcher) I think the initiative would have to
be driven by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office.
We meet with representatives of the Magistrates' Association,
the justices' clerks, the judiciary twice a year and we have been
doing so for ever.
794. I know.
(Mr Fletcher) And these points come up at every single
meeting.
795. But nothing ever happens.
(Mr Fletcher) Yes, that is right. The representatives
there from the Magistrates' Association are the ones who are interested
and I think we have failed thus far to make more than a minimal
impact and I think my conclusion from years of going to these
meetings is exactly as you said, that until there is some initiative
from the centre that includes participation in probation programmes
and community service, we are not going to make any inroads. Indeed
at those meetings, some representatives of the judiciary have
said that judges should not visit probation teams and community
service because it would undermine their independence.
796. That view is not widely held.
(Mr Fletcher) I hope not.
Mr Cranston: The Lord Chief Justice has written
to us of course saying that he is now telling the judges that
they have to go out. Of course they had to in the past.
Mr Linton: He is only encouraging them to.
Mr Malins
797. Could I add a point about pre-sentence
reports and again this is the point of the sentencer knowing what
is happening? When community service is recommended in a pre-sentence
report, the paragraph reads as follows: "Smith has been assessed
for community service and work is available and he is suitable".
That should be expanded, do you not agree, to tell the sentencer
exactly what it is that Smith will be doing?
(Ms Schofield) As far as is possible, yes. You will
know that that has been part of the Community Sentence Demonstration
Project and in Teesside and in Shropshire they have had a much
greater involvement and much more information about available
sentences and about the types of community service. I think where
a colleague of mine says which tree, which forest and which branch
we want him to cut off, I think that is to the point of ridiculousness
and not with every person who is assessed for community service
can you spell out exactly what they will be doing.
798. Then why are you not doing it now? I am
talking from the sharp end as a sentencer. Is it happening?
(Ms Schofield) This is happening in those two communities,
in Teesside and Shropshire. That is currently being researched
and the effectiveness of that will be demonstrated quite soon
through the Home Office research on those projects.
799. Do you think there is any argument for
toughening up some of the language that we use and that phrases
like "community service", "Probation Service",
"probation client", et cetera, need in some way to be
relooked at?
(Mr Fletcher) Well, we know that the Home Office are
looking at new names and new terminology and we are waiting to
see what comes through. We have heard various rumours, as you
know, Mr Malins, of being changed to the "Corrections Agency"
and one suggestion was that the word "enforcement" should
be somewhere in our title, but what we hope happens is a wide
debate within the Probation Service about any change of name.
I would not want a change of name for its own sake and it would
have to be with a purpose.
|
