Written evidence from the Staffordshire
and West Midlands Probation Trust (PB 04)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This evidence suggests that the current arrangements
for commissioning probation services needs to be reviewed with
a view to improving their links to local communities.
However, not all offending is local and the perspective
that is provided by current MAPPA processes must not be lost.
Crime that is trans-local needs to be managed at that level.
It is argued that the probation trusts are the best
placed to achieve this provided that they are large enough to
provide high quality management of dangerous offenders and have
robust local delivery arrangements to link to communities and
neighbourhoods.
Probation trusts perform well against national targets
but it is argued that these targets are too input and process
driven and should be reviewed better to articulate the outcomes
being sought. Consideration of desistence research suggests that
the relationship with the offender has to be seen as a central
feature of reducing reoffending.
Probation Trust are not free to make the best use
of available resources. The administrative burdens of bureaucratic
processes, monitoring and auditing distract from front line delivery
disproportionately. Probation Trusts play an active and effective
role in local partnerships and punch above their weight.
Not all possible requirements are available to the
courts. Those that are directly provided tend to be demand led
and generally available but those dependent on external providers
are limited by supply. Once in place requirements are robustly
managed and there is evidence of effectiveness.
The private and voluntary sectors play an important
role in provision of probation services. This is often geared
to provision to hard to reach groups. The key issue is to ensure
that the offender management role is properly coordinated and
not dissipated across disconnected providers.
The Probation Service is not currently resourced
to take responsibility for short term prisoners. Cuts to budgets
will make current targets difficult to achieve.
Restorative approaches should be supported provided
that proper consideration is given to the feelings and views of
victims.
Minority groups of offenders are handled well as
resources allow. This is easier to achieve in the larger Trusts
where greater numbers can be brought together. High risk offenders
are handled robustly through the MAPPA process which must be protected
in any future reorganisation.
Probation training is in flux and it is too early
to say whether the new arrangements are adequate.
RESPONSE TO
TERMS OF
REFERENCE
Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
1. The commissioning of probation services should
be seen on two levels. The majority of provision makes sense at
the local level, linked clearly to local experience and perceptions
of crime. The crime that is most often perceived by people as
creating a problem is contained within local communities being
perpetrated by local people. Consequently local solutions are
the most likely to address the perceptions. The current arrangements
distance commissioning from this local level and it is through
the organisation of probation trusts that the local connections
are made. SWMT operates through nine "Local Delivery Units"
(LDUs) covering the Local Authorities within the area. These LDUs
are led by a Head of Probation and provide local connection to
communities and a basis for local commissioning.
2. However, not all offending has this primarily
local flavour and the management of some categories of high risk
and/or highly organised offenders, including terrorists, has to
be delivered across the span that is appropriate to their offending.
MAPPA arrangements that exist at Police Constabulary level are
vital as are cross border arrangements in the management of sex
offenders within the Approved Premises estate. Probation Trusts
need to large enough to commission and manage such relationships.
3. SWMT is of sufficient size to contain commissioning
expertise and to facilitate commissioning at the right level.
Local commissioning can be supported but the wider context is
also within our commissioning capacity. Inserting a regional tier
into this commissioning does not make for efficiency, nor does
it create a clear enough link between the commissioner and the
people on whose behalf commissioning is being undertaken. The
probation trusts are better placed to deliver local commissioning
through their Local Delivery Units supported by robust Trust Commissioning
Departments.
How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management" and how does it operate in practice?
4. On a certain level the probation trusts are
operating very effectively. Almost all trusts are "green"
against performance targets and "green" overall in the
Probation Trust Performance Framework. Key targets, such as the
enforcement of orders, are delivered at above 95% with great consistency.
SWMT came into operation on 1 April and inherited the performance
of its two predecessor Probation Areas. The result is a Trust
with overall "green" rating. However, this belies the
question of whether the right things are measured and, in particular,
what outcomes are being sought by the activity measures that are
in place. The reduction in reoffending figures seem now to consistently
show that actual against predicted offending is reduced through
the interventions provided. Desistence research indicates that
incremental changes are to be expected in dealing with adult offenders
who have developed criminal and anti-social behaviour over many
years, possibly a lifetime. In this sense there is evidence of
success. However, it would be widely thought that success is achieved
in spite of rather that because of the range of performance targets
that are in use. Qualitative measures relating to delivery have
a far greater relevance to effectiveness and are under utilised.
5. Taking a different perspective probation trusts
are not able to utilise resources effectively. The very heavy
burden of administrative procedures means that front line staff
spend too little of their time in contact with offenders. Input
and process driven targets lead to excessive time being spent
in monitoring and inputting. Again, desistence research points
to the quality of the relationship with the offender as key and
this relationship is sacrificed when targets are inappropriately
set or monitoring processes unduly intrusive.
6. The probation service plays the key role in
managing offenders and can be likened to the mortar in the offender
management wall. More than any other agency or organisation the
probation service links the different elements that make up good
offender management (high quality assessment, robust management
of contact and behaviour, and well targeted interventions) and
provides the link for other organisations to work in an integrated
manner. Both formally through partnerships and contracts and informally
as the pivot of the offender management process, the probation
service punches above its weight.
Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered? What role
should the private and voluntary sectors play in the delivery
of probation services?
7. The simple answer to this question is "no."
Some of the requirements (such as Community Payback) are demand
led and available readily whilst others (such as treatment requirements)
are limited by the supply. Often the limitations arise from the
fact that supply is controlled through external sources (such
as a Health Trust) and there is simply not enough resource invested.
Provision often has to be negotiated through joint commissioning
arrangements rather than arising from a set of common outcomes
that inform all providers of the requirements. There is, at times,
a tussle over who is responsible for payment for the provision
of requirements, especially where there is no formal contracting
arrangement but a reliance on another agency directing its resources
toward offenders. Perhaps inevitably, offenders are often not
at the top of a list of priorities.
8. Once in place the effectiveness of requirements
is supported by the research on reoffending referenced above.
In most cases requirements are managed according to strict criteria
based on delivery manuals and these have been developed on the
basis of "what works" research. There are issues relating
to the integration of offender management with the delivery of
interventions as offender management tends to be less well resourced
(on a per offender basis) than interventions. Full effectiveness
will be achieved by both offender management and interventions
being adequately resourced.
9. Private and especially voluntary sector organisations
already play an extensive role in the delivery of probation services.
SWMT has a wide range of contracts and partner arrangements with
these sectors. From the supply of logistics, through supervision
of Approved Premises residents, to the delivery of accredited
interventions programmes, both sectors are active. In many cases
there is genuine added value to the role that these sectors play.
For example, the voluntary sector is able to adapt provision to
access harder to reach groups or to make a different quality of
relationship with communities. The essential issue is that all
of the work with an offender needs to be tied together tightly
as one package that is managed in an integrated way. The role
of the probation trusts in achieving this is a vital building
block of effectiveness in reducing reoffending.
Does the probation service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
10. The probation service has faced significant
cuts in this financial year (7.3% in the case of SWMT). Given
that the demands on the service remain the same there will be
difficulty meeting all targets as they are currently set. As stated
above, there is a common view that the target economy produces
inefficiency whilst not enhancing effectiveness and addressing
this issue will release resources for deployment in other ways.
11. Even given a reshaping of current demand
there is no way in which current resources can address the issue
of a move away from short custodial sentences. The offenders who
receive short term prison sentences, typically, are at high risk
of reoffending and present high levels of criminogenic need. Significant
resources need to be invested so that the levels of offender management
and the interventions provided are adequate to ensure offenders
are less likely to reoffend and are managed sufficiently actively
to reduce the likelihood that they will breach conditions and
be sent to prison as a result. Breach action arising from non
compliance is likely to be higher if a poor product is delivered
and the aim of reducing the short term prison population will
be negated.
Could probation trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
12. There is no doubt that restorative justice
could be used more by probation trusts although this needs to
be informed by research into the effectiveness of such approaches
in terms of reducing reoffending and increasing victim satisfaction.
The restorative role of Community Payback can be made more direct
through jointly commissioning work with local communities and
explaining to them the process by which offenders are making amends.
13. Panels that deal with more minor offending
at a local level and allow apology to the victim and explanation
by the offender can be used relatively easily and have been shown
to materially effect victim satisfaction with the criminal justice
process.
14. Face to face restorative justice with higher
risk offenders is very resource hungry as full preparation of
both victim and offender is needed. Some such work is undertaken
by some probation trusts but extending this work would have major
resource implications.
Does the probation service handle different groups
of offenders appropriately, eg women, young adults, black and
minority ethnic people, and high and medium risk offenders?
15. Perhaps the correct answer is "yes,
as resources allow." The issue is more easily managed in
the larger urban trusts where there are larger groups of minority
offenders. In more rural areas a particular minority might well
be very isolated and only appear as offenders in very small numbers.
Work based on group approaches clearly present particular problems
in this regard. The use of voluntary sector organisations working
under contract with the probation trusts is very effective in
provision for minority offenders.
16. There are well developed arrangements for
assessing offenders before allocating them to different streams
of offender management or to interventions. The MAPPA arrangements
are invaluable in managing high risk offenders and the relationship
between the Police and probation services is vital in ensuring
an integrated approach.
Is the provision of training adequate?
17. It is a difficult time to answer this question
as the training arrangements are in transition. The new Probation
Qualifying Framework has definite advantages in reaching many
more staff, but the quality of the training is yet to be tested.
In that the Framework is based on an "apprenticeship"
model the quality will be affected by the availability of resources
to back fill the time needed to undertake training and development.
In the context of reducing resources this is a matter of concern.
September 2009
| 
