My Department, through the Probation Service, provides funding to a wide range of community based projects which work with the Service to add value to its core work. The total amount of funding provided to such projects has increased in recent years, as can be seen from the following table:
Level of Funding Provided 2004-07
|
Year
|
No. of Projects
|
Funding Provided (€000’s) (includes capital)
|
Probation Service Gross Expenditure
(€m)
|
% of Annual Expenditure Budget
|
|
2007
|
66
|
21,596
|
59,323
|
36%
|
|
2006
|
66
|
20,827
|
49,719
|
42%
|
|
2005
|
68
|
18,471
|
44,939
|
41%
|
|
2004
|
68
|
16,040
|
39,966
|
40%
|
Funding of approximately €19 million is being provided in 2008. As the Deputy will appreciate, funding of this order must be subject to stringent value for money criteria. In this context, a new funding agreement structure was introduced in 2007 whereby groups seeking funding must commit to a range of outputs in line with the strategy and the work plans of the Probation Service. The project detailed by the Deputy has been in receipt of funding from my Department, through the Probation Service, since its establishment in 1997. In keeping with the need to make best use of State resources, the Probation Service has worked in partnership with the project in that period to ensure that the funding provided was used to the direct benefit of the probation client group, thus ensuring value for money from this distinct stream of funding. Despite the best efforts of probation management and the project, Probation Service referrals remained low with limited added value to the core work of the Service.
My Department was the main funder of the project in 2008, committing almost €300,000. It seems that other funding commitments did not materialise. Combined with staff changes and other issues, this left the viability of the project in question. Following a meeting between representatives of the Probation Service and the Board of Management in September 2008, the Board confirmed to my Department in September 2008 that it has put plans for the orderly closure of the project in place. In coming to the decision to cease funding, my Department took account of the level of referrals to the project from the Service, compared with the level of funding; the other local support services available in the Blanchardstown area to the client group of the Probation Service; and the view of the management of the Probation Service that it was satisfied that sufficient supports are available to the probation team in the area. I refer the Deputy to a value for money and policy review report on projects funded by the Probation Service, which was published by my Department in September 2008. The report sets out a strategy that will inform funding in the future, providing for better governance, better management information and a more effective and efficient delivery to the client group of the community based projects in receipt of State funding. I am a strong advocate of developing partnerships with local communities to add value to the core work of the Probation Service. The funding we have provided in recent years is a measure of that commitment. I want community projects to continue to work with the Probation Service to deliver a focused and measurable set of outcomes to the client group of the Service.
