Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 22 JANUARY 2008
DISTRICT JUDGE
MARILYN MORNINGTON,
LORD JUSTICE
WALL AND
MR PHIL
MACKIN
Q80 Bob Russell: The answers and
observations have been very impressive and the subject just covered
is a particular example. In addition, referring to Lord Justice
Wall's penultimate contribution, that is an area which I hope
the Committee will look at in great depth. You were putting forward
solutions to the problem and I hope we shall go into those in
great detail when we consider our report. Mr Mackin, can you describe
the aims and content of perpetrator programmes run by the Probation
Service?
Mr Mackin: The 42 probation areas
of England and Wales run an accredited programme which is either
the integrated domestic abuse programme which is chosen by 33
probation areas or the community domestic violence programme which
is run by the other nine probation areas. Each one of those programmes
is run on a formal basis and uses highly specialised trained probation
staff who have gone through an accreditation process themselves,
and they deliver material which has been assessed as suitable
in terms of changing behaviour and thinking processes by an academic
panel of international experts. The aims and objectives of the
Probation Service are for each individual area to ensure that
it has sufficient resources and ability to support the courts
to deal with the men who are sentenced by either magistrates courts
or crown courts. In addition to the programme itself, both the
CDVP and IDAP work in an integrated process, so we have what we
call the offender manager, who is a probation officer, overseeing
that person immediately on the day of sentence. Therefore, that
person is under supervision from day one with the offender manager
controlling, supervising and monitoring that person's behaviour
and making a risk assessment in terms of information gathered
at the pre-sentence report stage and further information gathered
after sentence. On the basis of that assessment decisions are
made on the speed at which he goes on to do the actual programme
itself, that is, intervention which is CDVP or IDAP. In addition,
we link closely with the police and social services and work the
multi-agency public protection arrangements again to ensure protection
of the partner he may be living with at the time and also his
previous partner, previous victim, and also any children involved
in the new relationship.
Q81 Bob Russell: You may have strayed
into my next question. You heard what was said earlier. You have
set out a great theory, but what about practice? Do you have the
resources to deliver that programme, because the suggestion made
to us earlier was that there were lots of failings because there
are no resources to deliver what the system wants to deliver.
Mr Mackin: The system was set
up ideally from the centre two years ago. That is the team where
I am based. The probation areas signed up to deliver that. What
we need to do is to see how that has been implemented. What we
feel has happened from the centre is that a lot of probation areas
wanted to sign up for it and did so—42 did sign up for these
programmes—but we found that they had to do it with limited
resources, that is, those they already had. That has created a
backlog of people waiting to go on the programme element of the
intervention. What we are doing at the centre to support them
is to evaluate these programmes and look at ways we can assist
with assessment and see if we can bring in the third sector to
provide cover in addition to what we are doing with the IDAP and
CDVP.
Q82 Bob Russell: Obviously, I do
not know what the Committee's report and recommendation will be,
but I suggest this is an opportunity for you to put the case to
us and possibly government in the hope they may listen. What level
of additional resources is required so you can deliver what you
wish to deliver that would meet the observations that we heard
from the two judges earlier?
Mr Mackin: The difficulty for
me giving those figures is that I am separate from the operational
control of each probation area. I can give a ballpark figure.
We have worked out that it costs £8,000 to £10,000 per
person to complete the full programme, either CDVP or IDAP. I
suppose that if we have a waiting list of probation areas that
identify the waiting list for people to go on that programme they
will then have to make representations as to what extra resources
they need. Therefore, a ballpark figure for each probation area's
waiting list would be £8,000 to £10,000 per person.
Q83 Bob Russell: Mr Mackin, perhaps
you and colleagues could send us a paper because that is an investment
of £8,000 to £10,000, but how much do you estimate it
will save the public purse by investing that money so that other
agencies do not have to come along and pick up the pieces?
Mr Mackin: That is a very good
question and we could make some research into it.
Q84 Bob Russell: That would be very
helpful.
Lord Justice Wall: One cannot
over-emphasise the importance of this. This work is absolutely
vital. I do not do crime and my experience is only anecdotal.
My wife sits as a JP in Camberwell which is one of the busiest
courts in England. The man comes in and is found guilty. The wife
does not want him sent to prison. He may have a job and may be
supporting the family. She wants the violence to stop, so she
says, "What about the programme?" She is told, along
the lines indicated—I am sure District Judge Mornington's
experience is the same—"We are very sorry but there
is a huge waiting list and we do not have the resources and cannot
do it." You lose people in this way and the recidivism rates
reflect that.
Q85 Bob Russell: The families and
children continue to suffer and the consequence for the public
purpose, let alone the human misery, is considerably greater than
£8,000 to £10,000. That is the point that I ask you
to take away.
District Judge Mornington: Mr
Russell, when we separate them from a family they do not go and
live in an ivory tower; they go on to the next family and the
next one and do the same again. We must break that chain for the
sake of all those families.
Q86 Bob Russell: I concur with that
and with what Mr Salter said earlier. My advice bureau has many
cases which overlap the work you are doing. If I can go back to
Mr Mackin, you mentioned other agencies. Can you spell it out?
Are you satisfied that by working with other agencies you ensure
the safety of current partners and former victims? Are you satisfied
that is happening?
Mr Mackin: I am satisfied. We
have set out the parameters for that to occur. With these programmes
we also insist that a women's safety worker is assigned to the
family of each perpetrator who completes the programme, or even
prior to the programme when he is being assessed as needing the
programme. Even if there is a time lag while he waits to go onto
the programme there is a person involved with that family, the
offender manager, to support and advise the police and so on if
any concerns are being raised about his behaviour. The parameters
are in place. Again, how each of the 42 probation areas manage
that, or have the budget to manage that, is a matter on which
perhaps I need to get further advice.
Q87 Bob Russell: Let me ask a very
naïve and innocent question which nevertheless must be asked.
What is the level of demand for perpetrator programmes, and what
happens when that demand cannot be met?
Mr Mackin: The level is very high.
When we have introduced the two programmes the probation areas
have signed up for them and the courts have used them because
they have been seen to be effective. The research base has been
proved to be a very good indicator that these programmes will
work, so magistrates and crown court judges want to use them.
We have a demand that exceeds supply. I am sorry but I have forgotten
the second part of your question.
Q88 Bob Russell: What happens when
the demand cannot be met? I would like you to say what happens
when demand cannot be met. It may give you greater weight when
hopefully you come forward with the written submission on my very
first question.
Mr Mackin: If we get to that stage
the Probation Service will look at other options. We already do
that. We have a number of projects in place in terms of evaluating
the programmes; we are looking at other methods of intervening,
but we believe that these two interventions, IDAP and CDVP, are
the best and we want to support them. If it comes to a point where
we cannot do that and the probation areas report that they cannot
put people through we will go back to the court and advise the
court and suggest another avenue to go down, but in the meantime
I and my colleagues are looking at other options to support these
two programmes so we do not get to that stage. Again, resources
would be helpful.
Q89 Bob Russell: How do probation
programmes differ, if they do, from those provided by the voluntary
sector? Do you refer or signpost to those services?
Mr Mackin: As time moves on, the
Probation and Prison Services work closer with voluntary providers.
In particular, in the case of domestic violence we acknowledge
that there has been a massive amount of expertise in the voluntary
sector regarding interventions and programmes. We are working
closely with our colleagues in the third sector to look at other
ways they can support both CDVP and IDAP. As an example, we are
doing an exercise in the South West region where we shall be mapping
out what interventions are available across the board provided
by the Probation and Prison Services and also what is provided
by third sector providers to see what we can do to support each
other and the programmes.
Q90 Bob Russell: Can you send the
background as to what is happening in the South West?
Mr Mackin: Yes.
Q91 Margaret Moran: You referred
to the effectiveness of the perpetrator programmes. Can you also
supply a note on the data that underlies it? What data do you
use to evaluate them and how can we have confidence that for that
level of investment there is measurable effectiveness in the programmes?
Can you also tell us how many perpetrator programmes have equitably
resourced women safety workers and at what point those workers
make contact?
Mr Mackin: I cannot give you the
exact figures, but the parameters we set are that after sentence
each partner or victim is assigned a women's safety worker. That
is part of the whole process that the person as well as his partner
or ex-partner or victim go through.
Q92 Margaret Moran: Are you telling
us that there is not always a women's safety worker assigned?
Mr Mackin: We always contact the
person who is being affected by the violence or offence. It is
up to that person whether or not that service is taken up.
Q93 Margaret Moran: At what point
does the worker make contact?
Mr Mackin: At the beginning of
the person's rehabilitation order.
Q94 Margaret Moran: They follow through
the process?
Mr Mackin: Yes.
Q95 Margaret Moran: When the programmes
come to an end what happens?
Mr Mackin: When the programme
comes to an end there is a post-programme report completed by
staff who have worked with the perpetrator throughout the course
of the programme. A meeting is held between the staff and perpetrator
and the offender manager. Any risk features that are outstanding
are highlighted. Work that he has done to improve himself is also
highlighted. When he continues his rehabilitation order his offender
manager will continue to monitor that risk as long as the order
lasts. At the same time, his victim or partner, if she has taken
up the opportunity of having a women's safety worker, will have
a final meeting with that worker and will be told what agencies
to use and what advice to take if anything occurs and the man
resorts to past behaviour; and there is also a six-month follow-up
interview with the partner or victim to guarantee whatever work
that he has done has been effective during that period. Part of
the research we are doing is to analyse that data. We find that
is the most effective way to see that these programmes work and
there is a long-term benefit in the perpetrator completing these
programmes.
Q96 Margaret Moran: Do you see repeat
perpetrators who have gone through your programme once?
Mr Mackin: Yes. We find that people
then go into the prison system because the offence is more serious
and then do programmes in the Prison Service.
Q97 Margaret Moran: What tracking
do you do, which comes back to my point about the effectiveness
of these programmes, following the end of the programme, apart
from what you have described to me? How do you know what happens
beyond that as far as those perpetrators are concerned? If they
go into prison is there continuity?
Mr Mackin: There would be because
the offender manager responsible for that person will continue
to monitor that person's performance to ensure there is no reoffending.
The difficulty arises when the order comes to an end. The Probation
Service is then not resourced to work with that offender until,
unfortunately, he offends again, or hopefully he does not.
Q98 Margaret Moran: Therefore, you
will come in contact with that person again only if there has
been repeat offending or the person is in prison and is referred
back to you?
Mr Mackin: Yes.
Q99 Margaret Moran: Therefore, there
is no follow-up process?
Mr Mackin: No, but we could ask
the perpetrator to self-refer if he had any concerns; and perhaps
it is also an area where we can work with third sector colleagues
and have an agency to look at that area of work. I can understand
your point. A key area is to ensure we can prove that the programmes
are effective.
| 
