Written evidence from Jeremy C Britton,
Avon and Somerset Probation Trust (PB 33)
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
1.1 I would respectfully wish to recommend consideration
of what surely must be the way forward for probation: the commissioning
of all services by local probation trusts. Such a move would give
clear recognition of sound principles of trust status. Devolving
decision making through decentralization of power would provide
local trusts with the ability to determine and commission the
best providers available to meet local need.
1.2 Clearly, decision making needs to be based
on sound business principles. The skills and wealth of experience
at all levels (probation boards, chief executives, wider management
and operational staff ) demonstrates that it is local trusts that
are best placed to determine who to commission to deliver services,
serve local communities and offer best value to the taxpayer.
Indeed, any alternative surely brings in to question the purpose
of trust status and the relationship between central Government
and trusts operating within the public sector.
1.3 The current arrangement, NOMS, has had a
significant negative impact on probation during the last five
years. NOMS has involved considerable bureaucracy and often meaningless
change. For example, the change of name from community service
to community punishment and then unpaid work but
community payback for branding purposes whilst the media
largely still refers to community service.
1.4 Probation has seen increases in funding but
this has not reached the front line to the level suggested and
widely reported. NOMS operating costs, failed IT projects and
inefficient buildings maintenance contracts have diverted additional
money away from core service delivery.
1.5 Policy and decision making has increasingly
been decided centrally without consultation, often based on consultancy
advice, whilst the valuable experience of highly trained and skilled
probation staff has increasingly been sidelined. The result has
been frustrated and demoralized staff, continually responding
to endless directives in which they have had no input and directives
that often serve central priority rather than local need. Indeed,
increasingly, priorities and focus have moved away from front
line delivery and serving local communities. I am frequently asked
by staff: "why are we being asked to do this?"
and "why is money being spent on that?"
1.6 The contestability model, leading to an offender
management/interventions arrangement, has also created unnecessary
difficulties including conflicting priorities, duplication of
process and a lack of cohesion.
1.7 From my experience, probation trusts are
ready and waiting to accept the responsibility that trust status
should surely have realised a year ago and be able to determine
their own local practice. Such a move would result in immediate
efficiency gains:
— allowing
local boards, chief executives, and their staff to fully apply
their knowledge and expertise;
— removing
bureaucracy, duplication and box ticking;
— controlling
the business and carrying out the responsibilities that would;
and
— allow
trusts to exercise powers commensurate with trust status.
1.8 Of course, a simplified structure would address
the current need to achieve significant financial savings within
the public sector and would realise considerable reductions in
operating costs as a proportion of overall probation financing.
1.9 Devolved power would require accountability.
At a local level this could be scrutinised through current partnership
arrangements, successful outcomes requiring effective partnerships
with police, local authorities, health and housing providers.
Further, courts create the work of probation and therefore probation
must be in a position to continue to respond effectively, offering
the best possible community sentences, ultimately protecting the
public and punishing while effectively rehabilitating offenders.
Clearly, the proper maintenance of this relationship would provide
further local critique.
1.10 National scrutiny arrangements could be
reformed as appropriate to address the revised commissioning model
and to ensure compliance in respect of key Government targets.
1.11 When considering much of the work of the
probation service - prisons, whilst key partners, should not be
considered the exclusive partners that the current NOMS model
dictates. The clear focus on prisons driven by NOMS has marginalized
probation. It is well documented that senior appointments largely
come from a prison background, as a result, probation no longer
has a voice or proper central representation. This is of particular
concern at the present time since it appears to leave the probation
message being heard through often emotive media commentary which
can be misleading and therefore damaging, undermining and unrepresentative
of the professional work of probation.
1.12 Recommendation: The Justice Select
Committee should recommend a structure involving probation trusts
as commissioners of all services within probation.
2. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
2.1 Clearly, my own area of responsibility, unpaid
work/community payback, will be a primary sentencing option as
a result of any decision to reduce short term prison sentencing.
I believe that trusts' community payback units are well placed
to deliver on any such outcomes due to tried and tested structures
and processes, implemented by skilled staff, often with many years
experience. Indeed, nationally, probation trusts are currently
delivering in well in excess of five million hours of unpaid work
every year. Communities within my own area benefitted from over
£900,000 worth of work in the last financial year (2009-10).
2.2 I have no doubt that the majority of staff
across community payback units will continue to create opportunities
to work increasing offender numbers wherever possible, within
sensible limits. This has been the case over a significant number
of years: In 2004-05, a regular maximum group size in Avon and
Somerset was six. That figure is now at least eight with many
supervisors prepared to take ten offenders where the risk assessment
allows and the placement can adequately accommodate. This has
increasingly ensured that community payback is a particularly
competitive sentencing option.
2.3 While the above approach benefits reduced
costs and increased throughput, understandably, managing such
numbers in the community can present challenges. Reflecting society
generally, community payback is increasingly dealing with more
challenging offender behaviour. In my own probation trust, supervisors
are trained and supported in managing risk and dealing with difficult
situations but as lone workers, in the community with eight or
more offenders, we recognise that our staff can be vulnerable
at times.
2.4 Further, while increasingly sentencing to
unpaid work, on occasions, courts need to give a more decisive
message to offenders who are in breach. Where an offender is clearly
not willing to engage and will not comply with such a disposal,
revocation rather than allowing an order to continue repeatedly,
will ensure the integrity of the disposal. It will also support
the ability to determine and plan expected attendance and therefore
accommodate larger groups of offenders.
2.5 The introduction of branded high visibility
clothing has been hugely positive but with increased visibility
naturally comes the opportunity for criticism as community payback
staff try to effectively engage larger groups of offenders.
2.6 Indeed, while community payback rightly promotes
the opportunity for the public to nominate projects, the projects
suggested will often not usefully engage eight or more (often
fit, young) offenders for up to seven or eight hours at a time.
Therefore, trusts need to communicate with the public to ensure
that they understand the types of projects that are normally suitable
and explain why some projects will reluctantly be rejected. At
the same time, trusts need to continue to develop placements linked
to local action groups and crime and disorder partnerships, since
much of this work is recognised by and has the confidence of the
public.
2.7 The issue for probation trusts in respect
of this work surrounds the taking of work from paid employees.
Therefore, if community payback is to be completely effective
in partnership with other Government departments and fully realise
the huge potential to do good, there needs to be serious consideration
of this specific issue/concern at a national level with clear
negotiation as necessary. For example, a project maintaining the
grounds of a National Health Service hospital was recently rejected
within my own probation trust due ultimately to the possible impact
upon existing paid employees.
2.8 Importantly, Government needs to recognise
the issues that present themselves on occasions as a result of
increased throughput and actively support the excellent work of
the majority of staff within community payback.
2.9 Recommendation: Probation trusts are
well placed to deliver on any such decision to reduce short term
prison sentencing due to tried and tested structures and processes,
implemented by skilled staff, often with many years experience.
However, to achieve greater reliance on popular non-custodial
sentences such as community payback, some transfer of resources
will be necessary.
September 2010
| 
