Written evidence from the Greater London
Authority (PB 55)
I am writing to you in response to The Justice Select
Committee call for written evidence for the first inquiry of the
new parliamentary session into the probation service.
I understand that Probation Trust status was introduced
in 2007 to allow probation services more independence to focus
their work on local communities. It is disappointing to me that
while London achieved Probation Trust status in April this year
its board has no representation from the Greater London Authority.
London Probation is currently part of the London Criminal Justice
Partnership (LCJP), previously known as the London Criminal Justice
Board (LCJB).
Given the complexity of London's governance landscape
and the proliferation of boards maintained by a number of agencies,
the Mayor and I have been determined to bring together the range
of statutory partners involved in crime reduction and prevention
at a strategic level. For this reason, we have created the new
London Crime Reduction Board, a non-statutory instrument that
will engender closer working with partners including the LCJP
and London Probation.
Our belief is that the only real way for Probation
to succeed in the London region, the largest in England and Wales,
is through endorsement from the Mayor which will lead to better
political engagement with borough Leaders and central government.
Our aspiration is that these new governance arrangements can improve
commissioning for all criminal justice services, including Probation—prioritising
resource allocation from central government to where it is needed
in London most. This will not negate the intention that Probation
Trusts deliver on behalf of the Justice Secretary—it will
only serve to enhance the reach of London Probation into boroughs.
An oft-cited concern at borough level is that London
Probation services are under resourced and struggling with workloads
and the increasing complexity of present-day cases. National research
published in 2008 would seem to support this—although probation
caseloads rose by 23% between 2002 and 2006, the number of fully
qualified and trainee probation officers fell by 9%.[60]
In an era of reducing budgets, services such as Probation
will undoubtedly be affected. However, this also presents an opportunity
to commission in more cost-effective and innovative ways. We would
support the use of the private and voluntary sectors in the delivery
of probation services, as long as there was adequate evidence
that the right results can be achieved. Spending less through
alternative provision such as this is only worthwhile if the outcomes
are at least equal to regular provision, if not better. Restorative
justice, for example, while a subject of a fascinating study by
the University of Sheffield in 2008,[61]
is yet to be proven effective in terms of robust statistical evidence.
In London, my role as Deputy Mayor for Policing is
to support the Mayor in achieving the best possible deal for Londoners.
We believe that this can be achieved through leadership and de-duplication,
which is why we are proposing better strategic arrangements for
all criminal justice agencies, including Probation.
October 2010
60 Probation Resources, Staffing and Workloads 2001-2008;
M Oldfield and R Grimshaw, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies,
April 2008. Back
61
Does restorative justice affect reconviction?; J Shapland, A Atkinson,
H Atkinson, J Dignan, L Edwards, J Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer
Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and Angela Sorsby, Ministry of Justice
Research series, June 2008 pp. ii-iii. Back
| 
