Rurality and probation practice
| Author | Richard Pugh |
| Date | 01 June 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550507070223 |
| Published date | 01 June 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Probation Journal
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2007 NAPO Vol 54(2): 142–156
DOI: 10.1177/0264550507070223
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Rurality and probation practice
Richard Pugh, Keele University
Abstract This article reviews a much-neglected area of probation practice: rural
service. It reviews relevant literature from other human services to make the case
that while the predominant focus in much of the available literature is upon ques-
tions of increased costs in delivering service to dispersed populations, there are
other important aspects of the rural context which bear upon the delivery and receipt
of service. It concludes with some consideration of the potential of the National
Offender Management Service (NOMS) for more locally variable and flexible forms
of service delivery.
Keywords dual relationships, NOMS, rural costs, rurality, rural social work
Probation, like many other public services, faces problems in delivering a national
service across a diverse social and geographic landscape. Within the probation
service there is recognition of diversity in terms of ethnicity (National Probation
Service, 2002a) and increasing recognition of linguistic and cultural variation
(Madoc-Jones and Buchanan, 2003; NPS, 2005), but the implications of rurality
are often not fully acknowledged. Within the criminal justice system generally, there
is some recognition of the nature of rural crime, where there is an increased risk of
arson, theft of farm machinery, the misuse of veterinary drugs, and an awareness
that while overall levels of crime are lower than in urban areas, the rates of increase,
especially of burglary, rose markedly from the late 1980s through to the mid 1990s
(Countryside Agency, 2003a). Where rurality is recognized as a dimension of differ-
ence within the probation service, it tends to be rather narrowly perceived in terms
of the higher costs of provision to scattered and dispersed communities (Home
Office, 2005). The reasons for this are complex and as with other services derive
in part from an implicitly urban perspective on service development and planning,
where it is assumed that the sorts of policies and practices that work in urban areas
will also work in rural districts (Pugh, 2000).
The probation service, driven largely by its strongly centralized directorate, is
perhaps more likely to adopt the ‘one size fits all’ approach which neglects or
underplays many of the significant factors that impact upon service provision in
142
Pugh ● Rurality and probation practice 143
rural areas. Furthermore, the institutional separation of probation from social work
and social care has left the service isolated from some of the debates about how
best to organize and develop rural provision, especially in the context of new public
management and Labour’s modernization agenda. For example, in these fields,
it has been suggested that the cost-driven principles of new managerialism are
antithetical to the development of fair and responsive public services in rural areas
(Dunn and Williams, 1993). Nevertheless, the imperatives of the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) with its drive towards the integrated management
of the offender, the contestability of provision and the aim of reducing the prison
population, are likely to pose significant problems for the probation service in rural
areas.
This paper is intended to stimulate a broader debate about the impact of rurality
upon probation practice. It begins by examining the issue of service costs, and then
develops a wider discussion about rural factors that impact upon service planning
and delivery, and offenders.
Rural service provision and higher costs
All public services have higher costs associated with rural provision. These costs are
generally derived from the geography of rural areas and the dispersed populations
within them. Typically costs are higher because of greater distances, longer travel
times, the absence of adequate public transport and the less intense use of facili-
ties and buildings. The weaker infrastructure of other public services and voluntary
and independent sector provision in rural areas means that there are fewer alterna-
tive sources of service and fewer opportunities for collaborative development with
other agencies. The increased costs associated with transportation can be signifi-
cantly higher. For example, a survey of car mileage and time spent travelling in one
mental health team found that rural staff were spending 25–33 per cent of their
work time travelling compared to 7–10 per cent amongst their urban staff. It also
found that the lack of suitable facilities and poor public transport networks resulted
in workers having to undertake more home visits (Wilson, 2003). In another team,
an intensive support scheme for substance abusers found that some workers could
only support two or three users each day, whereas their urban counterparts might
manage six or more clients. This diminution of capacity arose from the time and
distances involved in a regime that required two visits to each client per day.
Similar problems arise in rural probation where double staffing for joint visits to
new offenders is likely to be considerably more costly in staff time. Indeed, one rural
probation service director estimated that the costs of meeting national standards,
in terms of things like the number and frequency of contacts with offenders, together
with the costs of local governance, added £100,000 annually to the service’s
travel costs. These observations are consistent with the findings of the North West
Pathfinder NOMS Project (Home Office, 2005), which included the predominantly
rural area of Cumbria, and found that the expectations of the Offender Managers’
role would lead to ‘significant additional time and travel cost[s]’ (p. 69), with each
prison visit averaging a day’s work time and a round trip distance of 150 miles.
144 Probation Journal 54(2)
The researchers estimated that the additional costs for Cumbria alone would be
some £208,000, approximately 4 per cent of the annual budget.
The factors which lead to higher costs for service providers, also impact upon
offenders. Those engaged in community-based programmes are more likely to have
to travel longer distances and times to participate in them. For example, in one rural
area a man attending a sex offenders’ treatment programme spent nearly five hours
travelling to and from the venue. Poor transport networks, and lack of alternatives
for the poorest offenders, means that not only are they disadvantaged when
compared to urban offenders in terms of the time taken to comply with court orders,
but also they may be less likely to complete their programmes, and thus find their
difficulties exacerbated. Rural probation services can attempt to ameliorate these
effects by providing more transport themselves, but where they do so these costs
are also likely to be far higher than in urban areas. In large rural districts the
duplication of facilities to reduce the travel costs of workers and clients, such as
providing offices that are only used on some days of the week, or having to rent
rooms for meetings because there is no local service base, also add to service costs
and may make it difficult to meet the National Estates Strategy expectations in terms
of the efficient use of buildings and offices (National Probation Service, 2002b).
When public services begin to engage with rural issues and questions, especi-
ally in regard to rural costs, they often attempt to establish some fixed urban/rural
distinction, using indicators such as population size and density, or travel to service
distances and costs. Claims for increased funding are usually based upon these
sorts of factors and the resulting funding regimes may offer a simple uplift for rural
areas, or, alternatively, develop more complex funding formulae which attempt to
include and weigh a number of factors. For example, in the funding of primary
health care, a complex algorithm (the Carr-Hill Resource Allocation Formula) is
used to calculate the funding for general practitioner services which includes
among other things, the demographic profile of the area and travel costs. Within
the probation service the use of a sparsity indicator, based upon population
density, i.e. areas having less than 0.5 people per hectare, was reviewed in 2003
and this resulted in a 1.5 percent increase in funding to such areas. In one area
this has more than doubled the amount received in recognition of higher rural
costs from £315,000 to £733,000. While there is clearly merit in establishing
some easily applied definition which is open to examination and change, there
are some difficulties in this type of approach.
The major problem with relatively simple distinctions is that they tend to be
presumed upon a straightforward urban/rural dichotomy which fails to adequately
reflect the social and geographical variability that exists between different communi-
ties. For example, the travel and time costs involved in delivering any service that
involves visiting people in their homes are likely to be considerably different in a
compact rural area that surrounds a county town with good road and transport
networks, than in a rural area in the Scottish Borders or Highlands, or in Mid- and
West Wales. Furthermore, there may be significantly different social factors oper-
ating in a rural area where there are many comparatively wealthy commuters and
another area where unemployment is high, income levels low and where...
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2007 NAPO Vol 54(2): 142–156
DOI: 10.1177/0264550507070223
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Rurality and probation practice
Richard Pugh, Keele University
Abstract This article reviews a much-neglected area of probation practice: rural
service. It reviews relevant literature from other human services to make the case
that while the predominant focus in much of the available literature is upon ques-
tions of increased costs in delivering service to dispersed populations, there are
other important aspects of the rural context which bear upon the delivery and receipt
of service. It concludes with some consideration of the potential of the National
Offender Management Service (NOMS) for more locally variable and flexible forms
of service delivery.
Keywords dual relationships, NOMS, rural costs, rurality, rural social work
Probation, like many other public services, faces problems in delivering a national
service across a diverse social and geographic landscape. Within the probation
service there is recognition of diversity in terms of ethnicity (National Probation
Service, 2002a) and increasing recognition of linguistic and cultural variation
(Madoc-Jones and Buchanan, 2003; NPS, 2005), but the implications of rurality
are often not fully acknowledged. Within the criminal justice system generally, there
is some recognition of the nature of rural crime, where there is an increased risk of
arson, theft of farm machinery, the misuse of veterinary drugs, and an awareness
that while overall levels of crime are lower than in urban areas, the rates of increase,
especially of burglary, rose markedly from the late 1980s through to the mid 1990s
(Countryside Agency, 2003a). Where rurality is recognized as a dimension of differ-
ence within the probation service, it tends to be rather narrowly perceived in terms
of the higher costs of provision to scattered and dispersed communities (Home
Office, 2005). The reasons for this are complex and as with other services derive
in part from an implicitly urban perspective on service development and planning,
where it is assumed that the sorts of policies and practices that work in urban areas
will also work in rural districts (Pugh, 2000).
The probation service, driven largely by its strongly centralized directorate, is
perhaps more likely to adopt the ‘one size fits all’ approach which neglects or
underplays many of the significant factors that impact upon service provision in
142
Pugh ● Rurality and probation practice 143
rural areas. Furthermore, the institutional separation of probation from social work
and social care has left the service isolated from some of the debates about how
best to organize and develop rural provision, especially in the context of new public
management and Labour’s modernization agenda. For example, in these fields,
it has been suggested that the cost-driven principles of new managerialism are
antithetical to the development of fair and responsive public services in rural areas
(Dunn and Williams, 1993). Nevertheless, the imperatives of the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) with its drive towards the integrated management
of the offender, the contestability of provision and the aim of reducing the prison
population, are likely to pose significant problems for the probation service in rural
areas.
This paper is intended to stimulate a broader debate about the impact of rurality
upon probation practice. It begins by examining the issue of service costs, and then
develops a wider discussion about rural factors that impact upon service planning
and delivery, and offenders.
Rural service provision and higher costs
All public services have higher costs associated with rural provision. These costs are
generally derived from the geography of rural areas and the dispersed populations
within them. Typically costs are higher because of greater distances, longer travel
times, the absence of adequate public transport and the less intense use of facili-
ties and buildings. The weaker infrastructure of other public services and voluntary
and independent sector provision in rural areas means that there are fewer alterna-
tive sources of service and fewer opportunities for collaborative development with
other agencies. The increased costs associated with transportation can be signifi-
cantly higher. For example, a survey of car mileage and time spent travelling in one
mental health team found that rural staff were spending 25–33 per cent of their
work time travelling compared to 7–10 per cent amongst their urban staff. It also
found that the lack of suitable facilities and poor public transport networks resulted
in workers having to undertake more home visits (Wilson, 2003). In another team,
an intensive support scheme for substance abusers found that some workers could
only support two or three users each day, whereas their urban counterparts might
manage six or more clients. This diminution of capacity arose from the time and
distances involved in a regime that required two visits to each client per day.
Similar problems arise in rural probation where double staffing for joint visits to
new offenders is likely to be considerably more costly in staff time. Indeed, one rural
probation service director estimated that the costs of meeting national standards,
in terms of things like the number and frequency of contacts with offenders, together
with the costs of local governance, added £100,000 annually to the service’s
travel costs. These observations are consistent with the findings of the North West
Pathfinder NOMS Project (Home Office, 2005), which included the predominantly
rural area of Cumbria, and found that the expectations of the Offender Managers’
role would lead to ‘significant additional time and travel cost[s]’ (p. 69), with each
prison visit averaging a day’s work time and a round trip distance of 150 miles.
144 Probation Journal 54(2)
The researchers estimated that the additional costs for Cumbria alone would be
some £208,000, approximately 4 per cent of the annual budget.
The factors which lead to higher costs for service providers, also impact upon
offenders. Those engaged in community-based programmes are more likely to have
to travel longer distances and times to participate in them. For example, in one rural
area a man attending a sex offenders’ treatment programme spent nearly five hours
travelling to and from the venue. Poor transport networks, and lack of alternatives
for the poorest offenders, means that not only are they disadvantaged when
compared to urban offenders in terms of the time taken to comply with court orders,
but also they may be less likely to complete their programmes, and thus find their
difficulties exacerbated. Rural probation services can attempt to ameliorate these
effects by providing more transport themselves, but where they do so these costs
are also likely to be far higher than in urban areas. In large rural districts the
duplication of facilities to reduce the travel costs of workers and clients, such as
providing offices that are only used on some days of the week, or having to rent
rooms for meetings because there is no local service base, also add to service costs
and may make it difficult to meet the National Estates Strategy expectations in terms
of the efficient use of buildings and offices (National Probation Service, 2002b).
When public services begin to engage with rural issues and questions, especi-
ally in regard to rural costs, they often attempt to establish some fixed urban/rural
distinction, using indicators such as population size and density, or travel to service
distances and costs. Claims for increased funding are usually based upon these
sorts of factors and the resulting funding regimes may offer a simple uplift for rural
areas, or, alternatively, develop more complex funding formulae which attempt to
include and weigh a number of factors. For example, in the funding of primary
health care, a complex algorithm (the Carr-Hill Resource Allocation Formula) is
used to calculate the funding for general practitioner services which includes
among other things, the demographic profile of the area and travel costs. Within
the probation service the use of a sparsity indicator, based upon population
density, i.e. areas having less than 0.5 people per hectare, was reviewed in 2003
and this resulted in a 1.5 percent increase in funding to such areas. In one area
this has more than doubled the amount received in recognition of higher rural
costs from £315,000 to £733,000. While there is clearly merit in establishing
some easily applied definition which is open to examination and change, there
are some difficulties in this type of approach.
The major problem with relatively simple distinctions is that they tend to be
presumed upon a straightforward urban/rural dichotomy which fails to adequately
reflect the social and geographical variability that exists between different communi-
ties. For example, the travel and time costs involved in delivering any service that
involves visiting people in their homes are likely to be considerably different in a
compact rural area that surrounds a county town with good road and transport
networks, than in a rural area in the Scottish Borders or Highlands, or in Mid- and
West Wales. Furthermore, there may be significantly different social factors oper-
ating in a rural area where there are many comparatively wealthy commuters and
another area where unemployment is high, income levels low and where...
To continue reading
Request your trial