From Brian Heath, Chief Probation Officer
IT IS clear that Mr Henwood is not a betting man or at least not a successful one, as he would have lost his shirt on his wager about the Jersey Probation and After Care Service (JPACS): JEP Comment Monday 12 April 2010.

Had Mr Henwood approached the Home Affairs Minister concerning the JPACS he would have been referred to me or the chairman of the Probation Board, Jurat John de Veulle, Lieutenant Bailiff. This is because the JPACS is not a department of the States of Jersey but of the Royal Court. The chairman or I would have been able to answer Mr Henwood’s query easily.

There are currently 39 employees of the JPACS; many being part-time. The equivalent in full time posts amounts to 26.28.

All members of the JPACS, including the chief officer, have some direct involvement with clients, and receive specialist training to work with a diverse and often challenging client group who can be experiencing very real difficulties with their lives.

Two members of staff, the Chief Probation Officer and the office manager, have little direct client contact and a third, the research and information officer (part time 26 hours per week) has limited but regular involvement with service users.
These three post holders may spend less than five hours each week on such work.

The remainder of the staff team have substantial contact with service users as part of their everyday job. Of these, six staff members (equivalent to 4.06 full time posts) combine this work with other administrative duties.

The Assistant Chief Probation Officer, the Probation team leader and the sssistant community service manager all combine supervisory and management duties with direct client contact. (It is important to remember that effective structured supervision of caseworkers is fundamental to all forms of effective social work and therefore needs to be considered as front line work).

In summary therefore, 19 of the 26 full-time equivalents are exclusively deployed as practitioners, or as practitioner managers. Of the remaining seven, only two have little client contact as part of their duties.

The first definitive staff list I can find without further research is from 1990. There were 18 full-time members of staff at that time of whom five, including the Chief Probation Officer, were employed almost exclusively on administrative duties. Jobs and duties have changed considerably over the past 20 years, so there is an element of comparing apples with pears but nonetheless it is clear that the percentage of purely administrative posts has fallen.

The demand for our work within the Criminal Justice System and the Family Courts has increased substantially since 1990. The JPACS can demonstrate its effectiveness, and is seen by other probation services as being a leader in implementing effective practice and in achieving good results.

Over the years, the service has removed management and other posts, outsourced services and sought partnerships and alliances with the public, private and third sectors to improve its services. Additional resources have only been sought once we have been satisfied that all other avenues have been tried. JPACS has been inspected and reviewed regularly, and also conducts internal reviews in order to increase its effectiveness and efficiency.

Extracts from two external reports:
KPMG Benchmarking report for the States of Jersey February 2004 – ‘All the evidence that we have…..suggests that the Jersey Probation Service is performing very well and would probably feature in the best quartile of all probation services.’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation report 2005: ‘We see all this as very indicative of the service’s innovative approach to the supervision of offenders, improving wherever possible current levels of performance and continuing to enjoy the respect of government, sentencers and the various other organizations with which it works……..

Quality of Management: JPACS was well managed with clear business planning processes. The introduction of a computerised case management and management information system had been a very positive step, providing ready access to relevant data for both practitioners and managers…’

The service was also an innovator and had introduced a number of schemes such as mentoring, volunteer tutors and restorative justice to complement and add value to the work of busy probation staff.

The extent of partnerships with other organisations, statutory, contracted and voluntary, was excellent with partners and courts having a positive view of Probation as a trustworthy, ‘can do’ organisation’. The overall inspection score was 75% (England and Wales range 49%- 82%) a particularly impressive achievement when the small size of the Jersey service is considered.

And finally, I would like to invite Mr Henwood to see the work of the JPACS after which he will be in a better position to comment on the work of the service. I would of course appreciate an invitation to reciprocate.