Written evidence from UNISON (PB 47)
INTRODUCTION
1. UNISON is the largest trade union in the criminal
justice sector with over 50,000 members working across the police
and probation services and CAFCASS. We currently have 5,000 members
working for the 35 probation trusts and this membership is spread
across all grades of staff. We have strong levels of membership
amongst PSO offender managers, community payback supervisors,
approved premises officers and admin and clerical grades.
2. Investment in probation across England and
Wales grew considerably for the period 2000-01 to 2007-08. This
period saw a real attempt to drive up the level of professionalism
in Probation, with increasing sophistication and a range of new
offender management services. These developments have driven improvements
in the work with offenders to reduce levels of re-offending and
provide substantial alternatives to custody which are both restorative
and rehabilitative. Critically the emphasis on public protection
and multi agency working has increased the potential to manage
dangerous offenders in the community on release from prison. The
integration of approved premises as a key mechanism to manage
the most dangerous offenders has also made a significant and positive
difference.
3. The increased levels of investment have also
been a consequence of greater demand for probation work and a
greatly increased prison population. As investment went up so
did the demands on the service and these demands have outstripped
the supply of resources. It is worth noting that there are fewer
front line probation staff today than in 2003 (CJSM 07-10)
4. UNISON believes that probation services in
England and Wales could be managed more effectively with more
resources being dedicated to actually manage, supervise and support
offenders. We do not however believe that another wholesale reform
of probation is needed. This would simply be counter-productive
and add to the long list of changes and reforms which probation
has been the victim of. Each change takes a degree of time to
become operationally effective and yet this time is often cut
short often in response to some media coverage of a supposed probation
failing.
5. UNISON is sceptical about the "payment
by results" "rehabilitation revolution" and consider
it to be an attempt to disguise what will be significant cuts
to direct service provision and an attempt to bring in large private
sector organisations to provide service which will neither be
cost effective and likely to fail.
6. We strongly support the Government's emphasis
away from custody especially for short sentences which are not
effective. Probation is an effective option and one that is less
costly than incarceration. However to support a move away from
the ever increasing use of custody will require an appropriate
transfer of resources, not a cuts Agenda.
7. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
— The
regional commissioning of Probation Services via the Directors
of Offender Management (DOMs) is bureaucratic, expensive and at
odds with the Governments' localism agenda.
— The
DOMs Offices and NOMS regional machinery should be dismantled
and Probation Trusts empowered to commission locally for local
needs.
— Stronger
joint working with local public sector providers/partners should
be encouraged.
— Probation
Trusts should be properly and democratically accountable. The
Board Structure of Trusts should be reformed to provide a majority
voice for elected councillors and magistrates/ judges. This will
strengthen magistrates" and judges" understanding of
the work of Probation.
— The
Voluntary Sector should continue to develop appropriate local
partnership arrangements with Probation Trusts.
— The
experience of the private sector in Probation has been a disaster.
The failing Home Office Facilities Management contract; the problems
with contracting out unpaid work in London and the failed Bail
Hostels contract point to an immature market in probation services.
None of the private providers working in Probation has added value.
— The
private sector is not geared up to run the "rehabilitation
revolution". Instead there will need to be proper resourcing
of Probation Trusts to oversee the Government's plans to increase
the proportion of community sentences.
— Current
professional training provision in the Probation Service is good,
but needs to be extended to the workforce at large, not just Offender
Management Staff.
— The
principles of Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP) should be re-introduced
to unpaid work with appropriate resources.
Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
8. No. UNISON believes that the current model
of commissioning in probation is bureaucratic, expensive to administer
and at odds with the concept of local decision making. The commissioning
arrangements, contract monitoring, compliance and quality assurance
functions all divert resources away from service delivery. The
office of each regional Director of Offender Management costs
at least £1 million per annum—money which would be
better directed to front line services. If the cost of regional
commissioning is effectively £1 million per annum per region,
then real savings generated through commissioning have to exceed
£1 million per annum before the taxpayer sees any real return.
9. If the Government is truly committed to "localism"
then the regional DOMs offices should be abolished and probation
trusts should work under the umbrella of NOMS at a national level
linked in the Ministry of Justice. NOMS would identify what services
Ministers require to be provided and would leave the 35 local
trusts to either provide them directly or work with local partners
in a local delivery model.
10. UNISON does support the need to have a strong
national focus for probation work via NOMS and a clear link with
political decision making at a national level. The current national
links between Trusts, NOMS and Ministry of Justice have started
to become more effective recently and we would be in favour of
the retention of these links to provide the national focus and
oversight for what happens locally.
11. One of the alternative models of commissioning
that should be explored is working in closer alliance with other
local public sector providers notably local government. Strong
relationships with local government have existed in the past.
Multi agency teams already exist with youth offending teams a
good example.
How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management "and how does it operate in practice?
12. Although probation trusts are relatively
recent creations, they are of course building on what has gone
before, in the form of probation boards, areas and committees.
Although UNISON does have concerns about the capacity of some
trust managements to deliver effectively, we believe that the
35 local probation trusts do a good job and deliver effective
probation services to local communities. The meeting of national
targets and the reports of the HMIP both demonstrate an effective
and improving approach and dedicated and skilled staff.
13. UNISON has a concern about the lack of local
accountability of probation trusts as community based services.
The lack of local magistrates, judges and serving local government
councillors on trust boards weakens a trust's ability to represent
the communities it serve. We feel that local accountability is
important with this work and being able to respond to local community
needs should be a priority. The composition of trust boards should
be changed to lever in more local accountability, included councillors,
magistrates and judges.
14. The delivery of offender management is the
primary purpose of a probation trust. The need to have a single
delivery body is critical to having an effective service in which
information on offenders is shared amongst professionals and managed
in a appropriate way to reduce risk and protect the public.
15. Offenders' risk profile is fluid and when
it changes, a single body is able to absorb that change within
its resources. It is clear that probation trusts take the protection
of the public as their most important function and this should
continue to be the key focus of any reforms suggested. It should
be noted that to manage risk effectively particularly amongst
the group of offenders who are the biggest risk to the public,
requires resources and prioritisation.
16. In general a probation trust uses its staffing
resources to best manage the offenders it is required to supervise.
Currently two distinct groups of staff engage with offenders for
the purposes of offender management. The probation officer (PO)
will supervise the offenders who they have classified through
the OASYS (risk management tool) protocol as presenting the highest
risk of harm to the community. The probation services officer
(PSO) will work with those who are classified as being of less
risk. A common definition used in the management of risk is the
tier of offender, which ranges from tier 1 to 4; 4 being the most
serious. Tier 4 offenders are almost exclusively managed by probation
officers and this proportion is reduced down as we move down the
tiers.
17. Currently probation officer grade staff must
hold a degree and further professional qualification, most likely
to be the DipPS (diploma in probation studies) or Dip-SW (diploma
in social work). Training arrangements for staff have recently
changed with significant improvements and UNISON supported these
changes. PSO grade staff now have a clear accredited pathway to
professional development which UNISON has strongly welcomed.
18. The assessment of risk is a key determinant
as to how the management of the offender takes place in practice.
The level of involvement is linked to the complexity and risk
of the offender. In practice UNISON would argue that resources
and the direction of them, have not allowed for sufficient face
to face interaction with the offenders and this does impact on
what members feel is effective practice. Workloads have remained
at high levels and this has also impacted on practice.
19. The workload of a probation trust is fundamentally
driven by the requirements of the courts. They impose the sentences
and the probation trust implements the sentence plan. A probation
trust is unable to say that it has reached its capacity and cannot
provide any more services to the court, or those being released
from prison. The probation trust is duty bound to accept all those
being released into trust's geographical area. This has major
resource implications, particularly at a time when the Government
is threatening cuts of between 29-40% in public sector budgets.
Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that can be attached to community services? How
effectively are these requirements being delivered?
20. UNISON believes that that strengthening the
links between judges, magistrates and the local probation service
should be priority. Clearly magistrates and judges need to have
an effective relationship with local probation trusts and the
staff who are presenting reports. The full range of sentencing
options should be known to all magistrates and judges.
21. A recommendation made by a probation officer
or probation services officer is based on their professional judgement
but it is clearly only a recommendation and not binding in any
way. Probation responds to what sentence is imposed and seeks
to manage it in the most effective way possible. UNISON would
contend that in general the relationships are positive but could
be further strengthened.
22. UNISON would make the observation that the
greater the number of requirements placed on a community order
the more resources that are required to delver it.
What role should the private and voluntary sectors
play in the delivery of probation services?
23. We acknowledge that there already exist good
relationships between local voluntary sector bodies and local
probation trusts. They operate in an effective manner delivering
a range of services sometimes directly and sometimes in partnership.
These relationships are beneficial and have grown to meet the
need of all concerned. It is likely that these relationships will
continue to grow and have largely positive results.
24. The commissioning of these voluntary sector
services has been done locally by probation trusts and they have
delivered real plurality in provision. These relationships are
not forced and are driven by the needs of the probation trust.
UNISON is broadly supportive of these relationships providing
that staff who may transfer employment to the voluntary sector
are not disadvantaged.
25. The role of the private sector in the delivery
of probation services is a much more contentious issue. The experience
that probation has with regard to private sector involvement on
a large scale is not a positive one. Support functions like estates,
facilities maintenance and IT are subject to a forced national
contract and it has not been a success; indeed UNISON argues that
service levels have deteriorated whilst real costs have escalated
costing the taxpayer more money.
26. UNISON believes strongly that the use of
the private sector to deliver probation services would in fact
lead to a fragmentation of service provision at a time when efforts
have been made to deliver a joined up approach to offender management.
27. The greater use of the private sector to
deliver services would also require additional bureaucracy to
oversee the commissioning arrangements, contract management and
quality assurance. This additional resource would divert resources
from actual offender management and interventions.
28. The private sector will be looking to return
a profit from the provision of probation services. Without additional
resources this profit must come from the budgets of existing trusts.
This will be very hard to achieve without driving down standards
and putting local communities at risk. There is also an ethical
issues about whether justice should be driven by profit and peoples'
liberty affected by market pressure.
29. Whilst large scale private contracts on a
national or regional basis would be attractive to the private
sector, this would be at odds with local commissioning and diversity
of provision. It would reduce the ability of a trust to control
its own affairs and respond to the local needs of communities.
It would destroy also attempts to deliver greater accountability
for communities.
Does the probation service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
30. The probation service is in its second year
of reduced resources and as such the numbers employed to work
in the service have declined. The projections for further resourcing
cuts are deeply disturbing and its is unclear how probation will
function as a service should the projected cuts be realised.
31. The demand on the available resources within
the service has not declined and workload pressures are a real
and damaging issue. A number of local disputes have arisen over
workload pressures and this looks likely to become an ongoing
concern.
32. Currently many of the offenders who receive
short term custodial sentences would not have any contact with
the probation service following any initial inquiry report. They
do not receive any post custody supervision.
33. Capacity would need to be created if local
probation services were to see a significant increase in community
sentencing to address any move away from short custodial sentences.
UNISON believes that local probation trusts are well positioned
to deliver additional capacity if new resources are found. These
resources should come from the significant savings that would
arise from not sending individuals into custody for short sentences.
Could probation trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
34. Probation trusts already make use of restorative
justice through the community payback scheme. Recent developments
have included greater local community involvement in projects
undertaken by offenders and UNISON is supportive of this concept.
A large amount of public good is delivered by offenders through
unpaid work/community payback projects.
35. Enhanced community punishment (ECP) was rolled
out some years ago and has since been abandoned due to the intensive
nature and cost of this programme, ECP sought a more active engagement
with offenders and included developing life skills, pro social
attitudes and work on numeracy, literary and employment. UNISON
is calling for the reintroduction of the positive principles of
ECP.
36. Expanding restorative justice projects is
possible with dedicated resourcing. Probation trusts have the
skilled staff to further develop this work. The restorative element
is the local community's gain providing this service remains in
the public or voluntary sector.
Is the provision of training adequate?
37. The training arrangements for probation staff
have recently been changed. UNISON strongly supported the changes.
The new qualifying training arrangements ensure that all operational
staff receive appropriate levels of training which is nationally
accredited.
38. UNISON believe that the new arrangements
are adequate although they will need time to be fully implemented
and more importantly will need to be properly resourced.
39. Working with offenders requires a high skilled
workforce and continued investment in the ongoing professional
development of staff is of critical importance.
CONCLUSION
40. Probation has been the subject of far too
much change and reorganisation which has at times had a counter-productive
effect. The constant changes have often seen resources wasted
and the views of front line staff ignored. The introduction of
NOMS regional operations and focus on commissioning was excessive
and over reaching. Today duplication exists between probation
trusts seeking to develop and innovate and NOMS regional directors
wanting to dictate what should happen. This duplication and conflict
is unacceptable and wasteful.
41. The probation service is able to offer a
range of alternatives to custody and the restorative nature of
unpaid work has produced real benefits in local communities up
and down England and Wales. This in turn has delivered greater
confidence amongst communities that community sentences are worthwhile
and meaningful. This represents the best and most viable option
to reduce custodial sentences but any reduction in resources will
severely limit this opportunity.
September 2010
| 
