‘I’ve gone shopping with my mum’ - how criminals are avoiding unpaid work in Norfolk and Suffolk
Courts are avoiding punishing criminals with unpaid work because it is not being supervised properly, according to a senior Norwich judge. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has now ordered the company running community punishment in Norfolk and Suffolk to improve after a review was carried out in July.
Unpaid work, which includes offenders guilty of crimes from drink driving to assault removing graffiti and tidying up wasteland, was contracted by the government last year to Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The CRC for Norfolk and Suffolk is run by a French company, called Sodexo, but Ministry of Justice figures show the system is performing worse here than anywhere else in the country.
Our investigation has found some criminals given CRCs may be avoiding punishment and other problems, including:
- One criminal managed to avoid doing unpaid work by saying he had gone shopping with his mum;
- Up to 120 criminals being assigned to one case officer;
- One offender not showing up on 41 occasions;
”We are having real problems with the supervision of unpaid work,” he said. He told the court judges were staying away from imposing unpaid work because they felt the criminals were not being supervised enough. A CRC worker in court told Judge Holt that they had to deal with up to 120 offenders per officer. Under the old system the figure was 40 to 50 per officer.
Judge Holt also said there were cases where criminals had not turned up to do their unpaid work but no breach proceedings had been triggered by the CRC. And this newspaper has learned that on one occasion an offender did not turn up for unpaid work because he said he was shopping with his mum. The CRC classed that excuse as “acceptable”.
The National Audit Office published a report in April into CRCs which found there was “an inherent risk that offender managers may avoid ‘breaching’ offenders” as this could affect targets. Government funding to CRCs is dependent on them hitting their targets. Their contract states they have to hit target by February 2017.
Another case was heard at Norwich Crown Court where the offender had not shown up to do unpaid work on 41 occasions. All of his absences were classified as “unacceptable” meaning he could give no reason for skipping his punishment. One judge at Norwich Crown Court has designed a form for Norfolk and Suffolk CRC to fill in to record how many hours of unpaid work the offender has actually done.
Norfolk and Suffolk was the worst performing CRC in the country in five out of 15 measures which the MoJ uses to monitor them, according to the latest available figures which cover January to March this year. It was the second worst in the country on two further measures.
The figures show:
- Norfolk and Suffolk CRC is referring just 11pc of cases on time where offenders breach the terms of their community punishment. The target is 95%.
- Nine per cent of offenders are starting unpaid work within a week of being allocated. The target is 75%.
- Only 37% of offenders are initially being contacted on time by the CRC after being sentenced. The target is 97%.
A Norfolk and Suffolk CRC spokesperson said: “Our performance has improved significantly in the last few months. “Since July, 94% of community service orders have started within seven days and our staff are delivering high-quality supervision for projects that benefit the community and offender rehabilitation. We continue to work closely with local judges to support greater confidence in community service as a sentencing option.”
"Government funding to CRCs is dependent on them hitting their targets. Their contract states they have to hit target by February 2017."
ReplyDeleteI would think that some very interesting and creative discussions will be taking place in CRC company board rooms over the next few months, developing ways on how to fit the square peg in the round hole so all targets can be met.
Whilst it's not surprising that CRCs are in a mess with things like UPW,it would be a bigger surprise if all wasn't hunky dorey by February.
I'm also fascinated by Teresa May's announcement of an audit on race and inequality for those involved with public services. The target group the audit focuses on will mostly be involved with public services that are being "delivered" by private companies.
Corporate confidentiality, massaged statistics and creative accounting is sure to give an empirical picture of the true inequalities society hold for many.
But how a CRC can expect one person to supervise up to 120 people (many with an array of social problems) is just ludicrous. Supervising 120 people that were volunteers that wanted to be there would be a hard slog. But a 120 people that would sooner be anywhere else, well that's expecting to much from anyone, and it can't be good for their health either.
'Getafix'
Well said "Getafix", and when a good majority of those 120 are unemployed and being worked intensively,ie 4 days per week and need monitoring for attendance,attitude and performance, the job becomes untenable.The opportunity for breach is overwhelming, the constant bombardment of phone calls,excuses and rescheduling becomes a constant nightmare.Bring UN to that DV cases/safeguarding concerns and the daily covering for staff shortages/illness/holidays etc.A recipe for disaster.And this is from a CRC that's hitting its targets.
ReplyDeleteThe CRC in this area do not offer intensive UPW they only have the capability to offer one day a week as they do not have enough supervisors - to my knowledge they have never complied with the government contact
DeleteIf judges are staying away from sentencing offenders unpaid work, it begs the question of what they sentences they are imposing as an alternative?
ReplyDeleteSorry for typo's.
DeleteLots of fines,money straight back to coffers not privateers.
DeleteOh you have to laugh at the debacle that is TR as this article so eloquently shows. private companies are only interested in the bottom line and if they have to fiddle the figures and fail to do the job to protect that bottom line then that is precisely what they will do. I can only conclude that the Tories are basically very stupid people as anyone with a brain will have foreseen this happening
ReplyDeleteThey did not even have to see for themselves as they were warned again and again and again. Nothing in this fiasco was unpredicted.
DeleteSorry people, before we jump over CRCs over UPW and its delivery let us take a step back, well before TR was even a sparkle in Graylings eye. CS/CP/ECP/UPW has been in Probation since 1972 and has never been taken seriously by Probation... These stories can be told going back to the 70s, 80s, 90s and now. Hands up all those senior POs/PSOs who managed CPROs and sidlined the completion of the CP bit.. Have a dig around and you will find thousands of hours that were not completed and were hidden by Chief Officers when reporting back. Even the old IPPF reporting hid them.... The number of AAs recorded on CP throughout the land in the 'good old days' will make your eyes water. Why? because the ethos of probation was rehabilitation and CP is punishment and we know its there but we hold our noses. The problem is now it is out of the hands of NPS, the NOMs managers are all over the CRCs with regards to UPW, but prior to TR, NOMS turned a blind eye. So lets give this some balance....
Delete"because the ethos of probation was rehabilitation and CP is punishment"
DeleteI'm afraid my recollection is rather different in that Community Service as it was then was about 'purposeful' activity and my Service had a wide range of such on offer such as printing, making furniture for playgroups, helping with canal trips for disabled and disadvantaged groups, furniture delivery and removals for clients to name but a few. All had to be ditched of course because politicians got involved....
Yes, It changed in 2008/9 with Jack Straw, but the central thrust of my point is that these stories from the Norwich Recorder are nothing new and certainly not something that has happened because of TR. . I can tell you that there is just as much purposeful work being completed today as there was yesteryear. In maintaining integrity This blog has to have balance which I know you would agree
DeleteWell said. It needs balance and to pin the blame on 'privatisation' as the reason for underperforming UPW or in fact probation services is somewhat incredulous. I must have missed the records being borken in performance terms or indeed the low levels of re-offending prior to TR
DeleteI'm sure this is across the board (NPS and CRC's) and not just in Norwich. CRC's have been told to fudge the figures and make everything acceptable to avoid breaches. I remember good old community service run by local probation offices using local community projects. Custody+ was on the verge of being ushered in and projects were supposed to include vocational skills training. Then it all went downhill because of governments obsessed with making every sentence a punishment and probation trusts eager to earn a bit of revenue. Now it's called unpaid work / community payback but there really isn't any work or payback involved. Projects are meaningless, demeaning and unsafe, think 10 people picking up litter where there isn't any, or one group winding up balls of wool while the next group unwinds. We all know there are huge problems in arranging, monitoring and enforcing community payback. We used to walk across the office to speak with colleagues, but now everything is done though a poorly staffed call centre that answers if you're lucky. This is what happens when you take a fairly decent public service and sell it to private companies like Sodexo Links that are only interested in reaping profits.
ReplyDeleteThe only way CP will succeed under the privateers if it is a money earner.Watch this space for innovative projects with service users either being hired out at a competitive rate or shoved out as a group to work with a "Charity" or similar at no cost to to the CRC, except possibly as a taxi service, and officers to monitor attendance.
ReplyDeletePlease read the MoJ/NOMS Delivery of the Unpaid work requiremnt Manual edition 3.5, boring I know, but it is there for all to read and you can download from MoJ website. It directs all UPW providers that they cannot undertake any work that would replace or take the place of paid work. At best, they can only be cost nuetral and must prove that the work they perform is for the good and benefit of the community. Single agency placements are cost nuetral. Supervised groups are not. There is no money to be made in UPW, hence the lack of supervisors; they cost money. Part of the contract that CRCs have covers the costs of delivering UPW. If they choose not to employ supervisors, then they end up looking like Sodexo and will have to answer for lack of delivery. 14:23 behave yourself!!!
DeleteWhilst in a Sue Ryder shop in Doncaster I overheard a staff member say to the man who was there on CP (I am from a probation background so I know the jargon) that he would only have to do an hour 'cos it wasn't that busy but she would credit him for other hours!!! Some punishment.....
ReplyDeleteSounds a bit like Lonfon CRC. I'm just surprised there aren't any more magistrates in uproar over UW. But maybe they choose not to be because they don't know what else to do with those up for sentence. Another problem is that there are many "holes" in many of the projects and some are camcelled frequently and regularly, with service users texted and told not to attend. Slow breaching in our case is not about being told not to, but about not finding enough time to do it. What should we prioritise when everything is urgent?
ReplyDeleteOur local courts are starting to ask questions. For UPW breaches they want to know how many of the absences are stand downs. In our area that can be a considerable %. Similarly court not happy to hear of a person up for new dv charges, who has been on the waiting list for over a year for BBR (dv programme). Message comes back via NPS - but do we do anything tangible about it? Nope - have been running with a seriously depleted programmes team since the split - which gets smaller by the month as staff leave. Most dv clients are now waiting well up to and over a year to get on a programme - if at all - by which time, any motivation to participate has long since evaporated.
ReplyDeleteReading this with interest.I prosecute breaches within the London area and speak to offenders daily at court.The recording of hours worked is always an issue with Crc usually having to accept they have missed some worked along the way with custody looming how can they get it wrong.Recently I found out that one breach date was incorrectly submitted,the project had been cancelled as it was the supervisors birthday!
DeleteBristol Crown Court Judges going nuts over poor management of UPW, particularly the amount of applications to revoke as unworkable when they should easily be a breach. Have been summonsing beleaguered Case Managers to Court for a public 'roasting'.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am aware failure to attend on time from Court or late breach is a "Negative",Revoke and resentence is "Neutral" on the PBR.Rather then no breaches at all risking "lates" and any excuse for Revoking.Does that sound about right for the CRC's!
DeleteCertainly does! We're expected to do a review at about the 6 month point (on a 12 month Order with UPW) and if it looks like the UPW wont be completed, then to take it back as unworkable. (Needless to say, I don't). The courts (quite rightly) are querying this rationale (6 months to go - plenty of time!) What's the issue? Resources pure and simple - a fundamental failure to run enough groups to meet the targets. Again, not a 'recent' issue - the UPW team in my area has become a shadow of its former self post split.
Delete