Written evidence from Avon and Somerset
Criminal Justice Board (PB 22)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 This submission is made by the Avon and Somerset
Criminal Justice Board (ASCJB). The ASCJB was the pioneering criminal
justice board nationally and has been in operation since 2001.
The board comprises of the following Chief Officers in Avon and
Somerset; Police, Crown Prosecution Service, HMCS, Probation,
Prisons, Youth Offending Teams, Victim Support. Legal Services
Commission and the Police Authority are also represented on the
board.
1.2 The view of the ASCJB is that currently Probation
services are not commissioned in the most effective way. With
the development of a more integrated approach to offender management
the Probation Trust is best placed to commission appropriate services
and develop key strategic relationships with other partners, in
order to meet the requirements of those offenders managed collectively
by the criminal justice agencies in an area.
1.3 The ASCJB believe that provision of integrated
offender management is core to the future operation of many of
the criminal justice agencies, not just Probation, and significantly
impacts the resulting output of reducing crime and reoffending
by those most at risk of causing harm to our society. The future
of Probation Service provision should be viewed within the bigger
picture of partnership working with other agencies, not as a stand-alone
service provider.
1.4 Avon and Somerset have developed a unique
model for provision of integrated offender management with full
co-location and integration of Probation Police, CJIT and Prison
staff. There is also very close working links to other service
providers, including those from the voluntary and private sector,
to address the reoffending pathways. This has allowed for a greater
freedom of approach compared to the traditional approach to offender
management and allows the local CJS to target statutory and
non-statutory supervision cases in a similar manner. The economy
of scale and benefits from co-location and integration significantly
increases the capacity of the CJS locally to deal with offenders
at risk of reoffending compared to individual agencies working
alone. The significant increase in capacity is both by means of
support and pathway provision as well as enforcement and provision
of sentencing options for the courts. The increased sharing of
intelligence and information between partners associated with
a truly dynamic risk management model enables each individuals
needs to be regularly assessed and appropriate resources allocated
and sequenced to have maximum impact.
RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
2. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
2.1 Currently Probation services are mainly commissioned
by NOMS through their regional structure (Directors of Offender
Management). It is the view of the A&S Criminal Justice Board
that this arrangement does not best meet the imperative to commission
services with local relevance and strong strategic links with
other local providers in the criminal justice and associated sphere.
Probation workload is determined by the Courts, either by requests
for pre sentence reports or by sentencing to community sentences
or imprisonment followed by supervision on licence. The current
structure for commissioning involves an unacceptable dissonance
between NOMS, the independent commissioning body, and those agencies,
in particular HMCS who directly influence the workload for a Probation
Trust. There is little or no communication directly between NOMS
regionally and local criminal justice agencies either individually
or via the Local Criminal Justice Board, regarding the strategic
policies for the area and the impact this may have on volume of
sentencing outcome for an area.
2.2 It would seem logical and sensible for HMCS
to have a close strategic relationship with the commissioners
of the services provided by Probation, given they make decisions
about the community and custodial sentence that probation services
will manage.
2.3 Avon and Somerset have been one of the pilot
areas for Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and have developed
a cost neutral, fully integrated model for delivery of this initiative,
increasingly seen as a good practice model for other areas. Unlike
other pilot areas, the A&S IOM model has Police, Probation,
Prisons and CJIT staff working together collaboratively, co-located
and in close partnership with voluntary and community sector organisations.
This close working allows the unit to deal with a considerably
greater caseload than purely the statutory cases Probation would
normally focus on. The Probation Trust is well placed to commission
appropriate services which meet the requirements of those offenders
managed collectively by the criminal justice agencies in Avon
and Somerset.
2.4 Historically Police and Probation services
have been commissioned and delivered independently of each other,
with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) being solely
responsible for commissioning services from Probation including
those targeting reoffending pathways. With development of Integrated
Offender Management (IOM), where there is a strong partnership
approach to reducing the reoffending rates, an independent isolated
system is emphatically not an effective means of commissioning
services that deliver value and results. This is especially so
for the IOM model used in A&S, where the degree of integration
of the scheme allows for a wider range of offenders than those
under statutory Probation supervision to be targeted. It will
be essential for the future success of IOM schemes, for the new
"Police Commissioners" to be in close strategic and
formal partnerships with the body responsible for commissioning
Probation services in the future.
3. How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice?
3.1 The Avon and Somerset Probation Trust is
an effective member of the Avon and Somerset Criminal Justice
Board.
4. What is the role of the probation service
in delivering "offender management" and how does it
operate in practice?
4.1 The A&S Criminal Justice Board view is
that IOM is at the heart of how "Offender Management"
should be delivered, and that the Probation Trust and qualified/experienced
Probation staff have an essential role to play in this. As outlined
above the model for IOM used in A&S has several unique features.
Unlike the other pilot areas the model has been delivered as cost
neutral to the agencies involved. The IOM unit is truly co-located
and integrated with staff working alongside each other, where
possible using common IT systems. Intelligence and information
is freely shared between partners, and a flexible approach is
taken to managing offenders with appropriate staff performing
their specialist function irrespective of previously existing
boundaries and role responsibilities. The economies of scale resulting
from this approach allows for statutory and non-statutory
cases to be managed within the unit with individual cases being
dealt with according to the risk assessment of the individual,
rather than as a result of categorisation as statutory cases.
4.2 The operation of the local IOM model covers
four areas of business:
4.2.1 Targeting: Intelligence and an extensive
breadth of information from Probation, Police and other partners
in the IOM is used together with the joint expertise in analysis
to collectively identify those offenders who are at most risk
of reoffending. This is a dynamic process with regular reviews
of offenders' status allowing substantial agility in the changes
made in management regimes to ensure that appropriate resources
are allocated and action plans developed to effective manage the
identified risks.
4.2.2 Case management: All IOM cases are
managed according to an agreed tactical menu of options, ranging
from surveillance, monitoring and control at one extreme to support
and rehabilitation at the other. There is a constant review of
cases between partners to identify the appropriate options for
a particular offender at that time. The prison service are integral
to the development and delivery of this approach, using their
knowledge and expertise of managing the offenders whilst in prison
and linking to services outside the prison gate during the transition
period of release. The project is extraordinary in the extent
to which prison staff work "outside the gate" alongside
partners in the community.
4.2.3 Commissioning: Probation, Health
and Local Authorities work closely at both operational and strategic
level to identify offender needs across all the pathways, appropriate
services can be commissioned from within the agencies where possible,
or from external providers eg voluntary and community groups and
the private sector.
There is ongoing work to ensure that all partners
involved with the IOM deal with offenders as ordinary "customers"
eg homeless or mentally disordered and gaining access to services
in the same way as other members of society rather than grouping
them as offenders and treating them differently.
It would assist development of pathway support from
IOMs, if there were a local commissioning budget explicitly associated
with reducing reoffending, and/or local agencies had a duty to
ensure their services had been commissioned with relevance for
the characteristics of offenders.
4.2.4 Enforcement: The joint approach
to managing offenders and sharing of intelligence and information
between partners dealing with the offenders allows for a faster
identification of where things are going wrong with an offender's
engagement in the IOM scheme. This allows for remedial action
to be taken earlier and helps prevent breaches, recalls and further
offending. Where enforcement is deemed to be necessary, the sharing
of intelligence allows for more certain identification of the
problem and a speedier arrest or recall.
5. Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
5.1 The development of an effective IOM scheme
in an area, with individual offender engagement involving a wider
range of partners and voluntary and private sector providers being
managed by Probation and Police, greatly increases the range of
interventions available because of better links to providers across
all the reoffending pathways. This leads to a wider range of services
being available for sentencers. The close management and regular
review of offender's engagement in pathways, that is an integral
part of the IOM scheme operating in A&S, allows for a close
monitoring of the effectiveness of service providers and the efficacy
of the case management approach to reducing reoffending.
6. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
6.1 Local statutory agencies are unable to provide
a comprehensive range of services across all the reoffending pathways.
To be really effective, offender management must be able to engage
support for offenders across the whole range of options to meet
needs. Some of this provision is best and most effectively and
efficiently delivered by voluntary and private sector providers.
Where possible they should be locally sourced to ensure that provision
is locally delivered and joined to other support systems. However
there are issues of scale and volume where a wider approach to
commissioning may be more appropriate, in particular rural areas
where voluntary sector provision is less available.
6.2 Criminal Justice Board members have confidence
in the services directly delivered or commissioned by the Probation
Trust.
7. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
7.1 The IOM model developed in Avon and Somerset
allows for an increase in capacity and the ability to manage a
greater number and range of offenders including non-statutory
supervision cases. This is achieved by the effective co-location
and integration of Probation, Police, Prison and CJIT staff and
the constructive relationships they have developed with voluntary
and private sector providers in the area. The resulting economy
of scale and the flexible working approach ensures that staff
with the best skill set, are utilised for particular roles, rather
than operating in individual silos. In this context probation
staff expertise is employed, within existing resources, in dealing
with cases that would not normally fall within their remit.
8. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
8.1 The Probation Trust is keen to make much
more use of Restorative Justice (RJ) in appropriate cases. The
Trust has significant experience in working with victims of serious
crime and this expertise can be well utilised to support RJ developments.
Evidence shows that for appropriate offenders the impact can be
huge and lead on to engagement in follow up programmes. Crucially
there are significant benefits for victims achieved from RJ. RJ
should become a formal option for community and licence supervision
in appropriate cases. Locally the close working with police in
the IOM unit has allowed the effective use on RJ in case management
programmes, the Avon and Somerset Police were already utilising
RJ as a successful alternative to prosecution in appropriate cases.
9. 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?
9.1 The local IOM model developed in A&S
utilises a dynamic risk management model, with each of the key
agencies, Police, Probation, Prisons and other team members providing
information and intelligence to allow each individual being managed
to be assessed independently. In this way each of an offender's
key needs and requirements are assessed and an appropriate response
is formulated for management of that offender, a local example
is the use of Eden House a one stop provision specialising in
women offenders. The all inclusive nature of the information sharing
allows for a much more detailed, accurate and rounded assessment
being made of the offender's individual needs, and appropriate
resources are carefully sequenced to have the most impact, taking
into account the circumstances of the particular offender. The
Local IOM model involves the Youth Offending Team and all Deter
Young offenders (DYOs) are managed through the IOM process, which
substantially assists with the crucial transition phase as they
move to management by adult services.
10. Is the provision of training adequate?
10.1 No submission.
September 2010
| 
