Written evidence from the Wiltshire Probation
Trust (PB 16)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wiltshire Probation Trust welcomes the opportunity
to contribute to the Justice Select Committee's inquiry into the
Probation Service as it considers that significant changes are
required if Trusts are to be able to deliver what the Government
requires. We fully support the introduction of the "rehabilitation
revolution" and wish to be central to the new arrangements
as they evolve because we believe probation holds the expertise
and has the skills to assess and manage offenders in the community
in order for them to stop offending.
Key points of note include:
— Current
commissioning processes do not produce the required outcomes.
These need to be simplified, localised and undertaken by Probation
based on knowledge of local offender needs, local problems and
relevant partner agencies in the voluntary and private sectors.
— Probation
Trusts need to be freed up from the current over bureaucratisation
and be allowed to operate locally with autonomy. This would include
freedom from national contracts that are not cost-effective eg
property.
— Probation
needs to be freed up from central targets and be outcome focused.
This, accompanied by less regulation, would release resources
to increase offender management capacity.
— Probation
trusts, as the centre of local knowledge and expertise on offenders
and offending, would need to have increased capacity to manage
higher caseloads and the commissioning processes to meet the extra
demands that reducing short term custody would produce.
— What
constitutes offender management needs to be clarified. The relationship
between the offender and their offender manager is crucial to
its success. Delivery of the sentence plan can be undertaken by
a range of different commissioned agencies, co-ordinated by the
offender manager who would motivate the offender to engage and
enforce the order if necessary.
— Overall,
Probation Trusts are keen to lead locally to deliver Government
policy and are well placed to ensure that commissioned services
are properly targeted and achieve the required outcomes.
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
National
1.1 Nationally, probation commissioning is currently
undertaken by DOMs through a contract. DOMs also commission some
services on a regional basis, often meeting a collective need
rather than a local one. The IT and property contracts, which
have a major impact on economic viability, are also sourced nationally.
We do not consider this is the best way to ensure the commissioning
of local services. In terms of quick wins for local flexibility
and savings, the single most effective step would be to amend
the OM Act so as to empower Trusts to own land/property and then
to allow them to source property services locally.
1.2 NOMS also commissions some services nationally
but since local Trusts are rarely consulted about these, they
do not always fit local needs eg the BASS contract relating to
bail accommodation, and the OLASS contract. The procurement processes
used are complex, and lengthy, resulting in central directives
being implemented that may not necessarily be locally relevant.
Local
1.3 Commissioning is therefore over-bureaucratised
rather than focusing on ensuring that an offender's criminogenic
needs are met thus reducing re-offending. Effective Probation
work is geared to individuals so the commissioning process needs
to be local, simple and flexible. Probation Trusts have a good
track record of commissioning local services but need the capacity
to build on this. Some local contracts involving the private and
voluntary sectors have had to be de-commissioned by Trusts (in
Wiltshire eg for enforcement, alcohol and financial management),
because of funding cuts. These were small effective contracts
that were tailored to local needs and geography.
1.4 Whilst regional/national commissioning can
achieve economies of scale, it works against the increasing emphasis
on local joint co-commissioning of services between partner agencies.
Local Probation Trusts need the flexibility and autonomy to make
their own decisions about how best to meet offender needs and
to have the authority to join in with multi-agency innovative
approaches designed to achieve more effective services based on
outcomes. At the present time we do not have this authority.
1.5 In conclusion, local commissioning is the
most effective means of ensuring that service delivery is cost
effective and achieves the desired outcomes. Probation Trusts
have wide experience of this and are frustrated at the national
and regional obstacles and the lack of funding that prevent them
having the freedom to commission what they know would best work
with offenders.
2. 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?
Probation Trusts
2.1 Probation Trusts, despite being in
reality little different from Boards, continue to be successful
in delivering high levels of performance, good resource management,
and reducing re-offending rates. Being local, they can meet on
an equal footing with other strategic partners and be influential
in partnership working and local decision making. Probation is
recognised by its partners as "punching above its weight"
within partnership activity, and Trusts have developed a high
level of local influence.
2.2 Trusts were led to expect the freedom to
conduct their own business more effectively without undue interference.
Instead they are frustrated at the increased bureaucracy, over-regulation
and controls that have been imposed by NOMS. The basis of Wiltshire's
Trust application was to increase innovation, but we have found
this difficult to achieve in the current NOMS environment eg the
SBC programme that seeks to be highly prescriptive about how services
are delivered rather than allowing for local differences that
are likely to have more effective outcomes.
Offender Management
2.3 The term "offender management"
(OM) has become over-used and confusing, particularly since the
police coined it for the Integrated OM project. A different term
seems advisable to describe the process of end-to-end OM, and
clarification of exactly what it refers to ie an administrative
role or one that directly intervenes with offenders. The terminology
"offender managers" is also confusing for the public
as they are familiar with "probation officer".
2.4 The original excellent concept of a probation
officer maintaining contact with an offender throughout the process
and being responsible for the supervision plan and directing its
implementation has not worked out in practice because prisons
have been reluctant to relinquish control over the sentence plans.
OM has been differentially rolled out, making it confusing for
all including prisoners and the public.
Outcome Focus
2.5 At the same time NOMS has placed the emphasis
on the OM process rather than its outcomes, with targets devised
to ensure eg timeliness. This has encouraged the present target-driven
environment rather than making the purpose/outcome of the interventions
core in probation staff thinking. The Government needs to urgently
address this and clarify/emphasise the probation role.
Offender Engagement
2.6 Probation officers are skilled at assessing
offenders' risk of re-offending and harm, identifying factors
related to their offending, drawing up a plan to address those
needs, and organising interventions to meet those needs. Their
core role is to assess, plan and monitor the effectiveness of
delivery. Accordingly they develop an effective working relationship
with offenders to ensure compliance, enforcing where necessary,
and work with them directly on their thinking, behaviour and attitudes,
reinforcing work undertaken by other providers. They act as the
"glue" for an order and motivate offenders to engage
with their sentence plan. This could be equated with the GP role
in the medical world.
2.7 This works well in practice and is effective.
There is emerging evidence that it is the degree of offender engagement
and the quality of the relationship that makes a difference with
offenders. At present, however, officers have to balance that
function with administrative requirements eg OASys. Reducing the
highly regulated performance management framework and focusing
on the probation/offender relationship would produce better reconviction
results and allow for more creativity in the work undertaken.
2.8 In conclusion therefore, Probation Trusts
need to be clearly identified as having the primary responsibility
for managing offenders, their supervision and the direction and
oversight of any interventions provided by a range of resources
that are readily available to meet offenders' needs. NOMS also
needs to be a review of the term "offender management"
and clarify role of probation in its delivery.
3. Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
3.1 The CJ Act 2003 provides for a range of 12
additional requirements to be included in community orders, not
all of which are managed by Probation Trusts eg mental health
and drug requirements. Most can be utilised fully by sentencers
but some areas do not have, for example, an Attendance Centre,
or do not have easy access to mental health or alcohol provision
since this is dependant on local Health services being prepared
to commission such services. This leads to inconsistent provision
across the country, and sometimes within Trust areas if there
is more than one PCT.
Outcome Focus
3.2 There are also issues in the provision of
accredited programmes that are subject to numerical targets agreed
with the DOM that can be based only on projected figures, so if
demand exceeds these then it is difficult to resource. There are
for example long waiting lists for eg domestic violence programmes
because the need far exceeds the resources allowed, and this can
be frustrating for sentencers but could be addressed by a Trust
setting its own priorities.
3.3 There can be problems too in meeting the
NOMS target of commencing an offender on a programme within 6
weeks of the start of the order. This rigid approach does not
allow for sequencing the delivery of requirements eg an offender
may need to be stabilised on drugs or learn to read better so
they can understand/use course material, prior to commencing a
programme. Service delivery is also more difficult in rural areas
such as Wiltshire where it costs more and presents logistical
difficulties.
3.4 Probation performance is currently strong
with the best ever results in 2009-10. A significant number of
offenders successfully complete their orders and do not re-offend—a
key indicator of effectiveness. Orders are enforced promptly and
in Wiltshire, annual surveys show that we enjoy a good relationship
with sentencers who are confident about our practice.
Reducing re-offending and perceptions
3.5 The recent negative publicity about Community
Payback highlights the problem of what is expected of probation
supervision and of what constitutes punishment. It also highlights
the risks in a strongly target-driven/prescriptive rather than
outcome culture. There is a significant degree of deprivation
of liberty in community supervision but it is not custody. Direct
punishment achieves little but delivering effective rehabilitation
services within a framework of punishment can reduce re-offending.
Offenders, like all of us, respond positively to be being treated
respectfully as a human being, and to working within clear boundaries/expectations.
If not then their negative views of authority will be reinforced
and they re-offend. Probation can provide the balance between
these two and research shows it is the most cost-effective way
of reducing re-offending. Sentencers recognise this but Probation
needs to work closely with them to maintain confidence levels.
This is best achieved at local level and cannot be done regionally/nationally.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
4.1 Probation has long worked with the private
and voluntary sectors in a number of ways and welcomes the opportunity
to extend this. With the reduction in resources, the focus has
had to increasingly be on delivering core services and there has
been less resource available to commission. Indeed, some contracts
have had to be de-commissioned so that core practice is delivered.
4.2 Whilst probation welcomes increasing the
availability of interventions from a range of different sources,
this must be well co-ordinated. Reviews of cases that go wrong
usually identify problems with fragmented delivery, often taken
advantage of by offenders. There would be a danger in fragmenting
delivery even more if it was not co-ordinated by probation. Delivery
of the plan can be done by different agencies but the task of
orchestrating and monitoring the outcomes must rest with Probation
to ensure cost-effective delivery.
4.3 Other sectors are showing enthusiasm for
working with offenders and this is positive. The commissioning
and oversight of offender services must however remain in the
public sector for there to be clear public accountability.through
Ministers and Parliament, and a strong professional lead built
on the vast professional experience of front line probation services.
There are good opportunities for other sectors to become involved
and enhance work already being undertaken. Developing a way to
harness the best from each sector would result in a more cost-effective
approach rooted in the local area using the voluntary sector's
local connections and the private sector's drive for efficiency.
In this way the public would benefit most from the successes achieved
and would feel more connected with the delivery.
4.4 There are real opportunities for Probation
Trusts to create new delivery models and to work with others to
establish eg social enterprises/arms-length companies. Trust Board
members bring a wealth of experience in this field and are keen
to have the freedom to develop different and creative approaches
alongside other sector agencies.
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
5.1 The probation service does not at present
have the capacity to manage a steep rise in caseloads within the
current framework and resourcing levels. There could be some absorption
of more offenders if there was a freeing up of the expectations
and administrative elements of supervision, with an emphasis on
achieving outcomes rather than process driven targets. More creative
ways of managing groups of offenders could also be developed.
However more resources would be required to effectively manage
a significant increase.
5.2 The move away from short-term custodial sentences
would be welcomed by the Probation Service but would need to be
managed well if public and sentencer confidence was to be maintained.
There is a real challenge in respect of managing lower risk persistent
offenders who often represent the "revolving door" group
who go in and out of prison. Drugs and alcohol are root elements
in much crime so Health provision also would be required. However,
properly resourced, the probation service is confident that re-offending
rates could be lowered for this group.
5.3 Resources could be freed up by reducing the
amount of regulation currently imposed but the bulk would need
to be released from the prison system and from central administration,
and re-allocated to local Trusts as front line deliverers. Local
options could be developed in partnership with a range of agencies,
such as enhanced diversion schemes/the creative use of Community
Payback/shorter orders, that would improve the cost-effectiveness
of interventions, but in order to manage the volume of extra numbers
effectively then probation would need to be properly resourced.
6. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
6.1 Probation Trusts could undoubtedly make more
use of restorative justice (RJ). There are several schemes around
the country that can demonstrate their effectiveness. There is
however a lack of consistent availability and some areas have
little more than an extended use of fixed penalties in place.
Closer work between Trusts and.local police is required.
6.2 Probation's main contribution to RJ is Community
Payback which has a clear restorative element, although without
the direct victim contact. This appears to have been lost more
recently with the Government's emphasis more on punishment, but
this could be re-balanced and the restorative elements strengthened
by Probation.
6.3 RJ is also important to victims and can have
a powerful impact on offenders so it would be beneficial to develop
a broad framework including a sentencing option. This would allow
Probation to support offenders to benefit from a range of RJ interventions
at different stages to maximise the benefits to victims and to
the offender change process.
7. 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?
Diversity Issues
7.1 Part of Probation's initial assessment process
for offenders requires diversity issues to be taken into account
so that resulting plans for those with particular needs such as
offenders who are female, disabled or young adults would have
this built into the agreed actions. Identifying these issues is
a particular strength of probation who have a good track record
in respect of equality and diversity.
7.2 In rural areas where numbers are small and
spread thinly, service delivery is more expensive. In this case,
care is taken to ensure that adequate support is provided/special
arrangements are made. We resource interpreters where this is
required which can prove expensive if needed throughout a whole
order.
High and Medium Risk Offenders
7.3 There are multi-agency Prolific and other
Priority Offender (PPO) schemes for those at high risk of re-offending,
and these are now being combined with Integrated Offender Management
(IOM) arrangements. Merging the two processes would be helpful.
7.4 High risk of harm offenders are managed through
the MAPPA process and are prioritised. Probation has an excellent
track record of success with this group, with less than 1% of
MAPPA cases re-offending. Overall only 0.6% of offenders commit
a serious further offence (SFO) whilst on supervision although
this can have high profile implications for the Service which
can undermine public confidence in community supervision.
7.5 Whilst it is right that public protection
is given the highest priority, it is important to note that this
has implications for the remainder of the caseload. Some medium
risk offenders present significant and complex problems and it
is from this group that the majority of SFOs emanate. With the
continuing reduction in resources and the prioritisation of high
risk offenders then inevitably there will be less resource for
the medium and low risk groups.
8. Is the provision of training adequate?
8.1 New training arrangements for probation officers
were introduced by NOMS in April 2010 and are as yet untested.
The increased autonomy under the new arrangements is welcomed
but there are concerns about whether this will be properly resourced.
For the first time this year, we were unable to offer jobs to
qualifying probation officers because of the downsizing of the
organisation due to reduced budget. Workforce planning is particularly
difficult at present given the current level of uncertainty.
8.2 There is no continuous professional development
post qualification for probation officers and only NVQs for other
staff. This is a serious gap and one that needs to be addressed.
Local training is provided for staff but this requires proper
resourcing. There is a danger that training budgets will be reduced
even further with the financial cuts and this would have serious
consequences for future effectiveness. There are problems in accessing
timely training for national training eg accredited programmes,
which affects local delivery.
8.3 There is also a serious gap in leadership
and management development and succession planning, with no national
programme in place other than occasional invitations for senior
staff to attend prison management events. There is no funding
available for senior or middle manager programmes, and Chief Executives
are not considered to be eligible for Senior Civil Service training
despite the complexity of their role.
September 2010
| 
