Written evidence from the West Yorkshire
Probation Trust (PB 23)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Existing arrangements for the commissioning of probation
services could be improved, not least because they are often too
distant from local communities and local services.
Probation Trusts are structured to deliver services
at local level, and have key skills in assessing risk and in co-ordinating
and delivering services to offenders at all stages of the criminal
justice process. Trusts are highly valued members of local partnerships.
They are ideally placed to commission probation services at local
level.
Probation Trusts have delivered reductions in reoffending.
They could achieve much more if they were enabled to focus on
local concerns and priorities, rather than meeting centrally imposed
targets and scrutiny requirements. Trusts should be given greater
business freedoms to enable them to develop their competitive
and innovative potential.
Trusts have the ability to reduce the reoffending
rates and risk levels of those currently sentenced to short term
custody, but capacity would need to be created to enable them
to work effectively with this demanding group.
Trusts already have extensive links with a range
of other organisations, including those in the voluntary sector,
which could have a particularly enhanced role in the management
of lower risk offenders. Restorative Justice should be a core
sentencing option.
Trusts can demonstrate effective work with a diverse
range of offenders, including those posing a high risk of harm
and reoffending.
It is too soon to assess the effectiveness of the
new probation qualifying framework, but its general approach is
welcomed. Greater attention is needed to the development of senior
managers.
Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
1. Most probation services are commissioned by
a NOMS regional Director of Offender Management, who is informed
by a strong national steer. This approach is distant from local
communities and their diverse needs, from local sentencers, and
from existing commissioning arrangements at locality level. Regional
commissioning of probation services contrasts with much offender-related
commissioning which takes place at local authority level.
2. Existing governance arrangements with NOMS
can often be experienced by Trusts as a mixture of commissioning
and line management activity. A greater emphasis on the former
would bring more clarity to the arrangements, an increased focus
on outcomes, and a consistency with current legislation.
3. Probation Trusts are structured, through its
Local Delivery Units, to deliver services at local level, and
are at the very centre of local partnership arrangements to reduce
re-offending. They co-ordinate the management of offenders at
all points of the criminal justice system, working closely with
statutory and voluntary agencies as well as the private sector.
4. The Probation Service has an extensive knowledge
and skills base in delivering offender services in order to reduce
re-offending and manage risk, and is respected as such by partners.
It is a statutory member of Community Safety Partnerships, and
is increasingly involved in joint and co-commissioning activity.
5. The Probation Service has a track record of
innovation, of supporting innovation in others, and in developing
flexible responses to changes either in criminal behaviour or
in government policy.
6. Trusts have reduced the reoffending rates
of those under probation supervision.
7. If it is accepted that the case for the commissioning
of probation services at local level is well made, Probation Trusts,
for all the above reasons, are ideally placed to act as the local
commissioner of probation services.
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?
8. The anticipated freedoms and flexibilities
to enable Trusts to respond proactively to local issues have not
yet been delivered by NOMS. Additionally, Trusts require greater
business freedoms to enable them to develop their potential to
compete and innovate.
9. Instead, Trusts have had to devote significant
resource to centrally-imposed monitoring activity or to nationally-determined
priorities. Front-line staff spend a considerable portion of their
time meeting national and regional audit, inspection, and monitoring
requirements.
10. Such activity takes front line staff away
from direct contact with individual offenders, and restricts their
ability to build the constructive relationships which research
evidence highlights as a vital element in engaging offenders in
changing anti-social attitudes and behaviours.
11. Nonetheless, many Trusts have delivered better
than predicted reductions in re-offending—a key test of
their effectiveness. In West Yorkshire, reductions approaching
10% are being achieved. Critical factors behind such successes
have been Trusts' skills in assessing risk and crime-related issues,
and their ability to co-ordinate the full range of services, delivered
by a number of providers, that constitute "offender management".
12. The importance of this co-ordinating role
cannot be emphasised too much. An increasing number of agencies
are involved in the delivery of services to offenders, and with
it comes the potential for fragmentation and loss of focus. Trusts
have shown that they have the capability to manage this complex
undertaking, and they are rightly regarded by local partner agencies
as the lead organisation in driving the reducing reoffending agenda.
It is suggested that no other agency has the depth and range of
knowledge and skill in relation to managing offenders, nor is
better placed to commission services to offenders at local level.
Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
13. Sentencers are able to fully utilise those
requirements that are delivered by Probation Trusts. Probation
staff are available in court to provide advice to sentencers about
the detail of requirements, and there are sound communication
and feedback channels between Trusts and sentencers on issues
of mutual interest.
14. Problems can arise for some Trusts where
requirements are dependent on services provided by other agencies,
such as treatment for alcohol or mental health issues.
15. There is a tension between centrally determined
volume targets for requirements and local assessments of need
for such requirements. The national performance framework and
its priorities do not always sit easily with local concerns and
priorities.
16. Some Trusts are extending the range of services
available to sentencers eg via more specified activity requirements,
so that courts can more precisely tailor the sentence to the individual
defendant.
17. In terms of effectiveness, completion rates
of requirements are high, and there is an established link between
completion rates and reduced reoffending . Performance against
enforcement targets is consistently strong. Victim satisfaction
measures are high, as are those of community payback beneficiaries.
18. The reoffending rates of those on community
orders managed by Trusts outperform short term custody by some
margin.
What role should the private and voluntary sectors
play in the delivery of probation services?
19. Trusts already have strong and extensive
links with voluntary agencies. These agencies often have good
localised connections that can be especially beneficial after
a period of statutory supervision has ended. Voluntary agencies
play a vital role in the delivery of essential services relating
to accommodation, employability, substance misuse, and community
payback for example.
20. If Probation Trusts are to manage greater
numbers of community orders as part of any initiative by government
to reduce the prison population, the voluntary sector could play
a significant role not only in the supervision of lower risk offenders,
but also in the supervision of offenders with complex needs, who
typically form the majority of those who are currently sentenced
to short term custody. Voluntary agencies could be pivotal in
providing mentors and volunteers to complement the work of the
statutory sector, in line with the government's Big Society approach.
21. The private sector could assist in delivering
more efficient support functions, not least in relation to technology.
The private sector could also have a role in improving the employability
skills of offenders, many of whom have low literacy and numeracy
levels, and, crucially, in providing employment opportunities
for offenders. The private sector may well have skills that could
support any social enterprises that were established to deliver
some probation services.
Does the Probation Service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
22. The Probation Service is used to dealing
with high volumes (at any one time it deals with around 250,000
individuals) and with the issues posed by short sentence prisoners,
whose reoffending rates are significantly higher than those prisoners
who are subject to statutory supervision by Trusts.
23. Sentencers already make full use of Probation
resources. The volume and complexity of probation caseloads continue
to increase. Because of their offending and risk profile, short
term prisoners need to become a priority group for offender management,
and for that reason capacity would undoubtedly need to be created
to enable Probation Trusts to reduce the reoffending of this group.
24. In terms of creating the necessary capacity
for Trusts, lower risk groups would need to be diverted through
the use of pre court measures, greater use of fines, discharges,
and electronic monitoring, and through greater involvement of
the voluntary sector. The use of shorter, leaner requirements
in community orders would need to encouraged. The experience of
many Trusts is that maximum impact takes place in the first three
to six months of an order.
25. Government should present the evidence to
the public about the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community
orders over short term custody, and to publicise more widely the
public's stated preference for measures that are proven to reduce
reoffending.
26. As well as the diversion of lower risk cases
from the Probation caseload, the transfer of resource from custody
to community settings would need to take place, as would the transfer
of resource from national and regional structures to individual
Trusts. Increasing Probation's ability to commission services,
especially those that offenders have historically struggled to
access, such as housing, mental health, and substance misuse services,
would support a more systematic approach to those with chronic
and complex needs.
27. Reducing the burden of central process and
output driven targets, of central audit and scrutiny would assist
in releasing capacity. Crucially, increasing the exercise of local
professional judgement of skilled staff through a relaxation of
nationally-determined standards, and through the implementation
of a more generic community order (whose components would be determined
more by the supervising officer) would further release much-needed
capacity.
Could Probation Trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
28. The Probation Service has a history of delivering
services to victims, for example in helping to establish Victim
Support, and in setting up numerous mediation and reparation schemes.
29. The Probation Service's public protection
work is driven by the aim of protecting victims, and in a number
of Trusts victim-empathy work with all offenders is a core activity.
Restorative Justice (RJ) is deployed both as an element of Intensive
Alternative to Custody schemes and as a community order specified
activity. Feedback from victims demonstrates an extremely high
level of satisfaction with the victim liaison functions carried
out by Trusts. RJ practice therefore sits comfortably with Trusts'
general approach to work with victims and offenders.
30. There are a number of reasons why Trusts
would wish to employ greater use of Restorative Justice: victim
satisfaction, support from sentencers, impact on reoffending (especially
in relation to prolific offenders), public approval for such schemes,
and resonance with approaches that support desistance from offending.
Making RJ a core sentencing option would therefore be welcomed.
Does the Probation Service handle different groups
of offenders appropriately eg women, young adults, black and ethnic
people, and high and medium risk offenders?
31. The Probation Service has expertise in undertaking
individualised assessments, and in translating those assessments
into bespoke supervision packages. It deals with a wide range
of people with diverse backgrounds and complex needs, and has
developed a range of provision to address those needs. Trusts
are increasingly obtaining and using feedback from individual
offenders about the appropriateness of the services being delivered
to them.
32. In relation to women, Trusts already
work hard to engage with the complex needs of many women offenders.
Some Trusts have semi-specialist staff who concentrate on women
offenders, and have helped to establish women—only services
delivered in partnership with voluntary providers, both seconding
Trust staff into the provider's one-stop facilities and also improving
the provider's skills in relation to the management of risk. Satisfaction
rates among the women offenders who access these services are
high, and short term custody for women has reduced . This latter
factor is especially relevant, given the child-care responsibilities
undertaken by many women offenders.
33. There exist strong links between Trusts and
Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). Many young offenders do however
experience difficulty in making the transition into the adult
justice framework. They tend to have lower compliance levels and
completion rates as a result. Trusts are aware both of the generally
lower caseload levels experienced by staff working in YOTs, and
of their access to a wide range of services to support the young
person and their family. Improving the transition from the youth
to the adult justice system has to be a priority for the justice
system in order to support desistance from offending and reduce
reoffending rates, although this is unlikely to be resource-neutral.
34. The Trust is a central participant in prolific
offender schemes and in Integrated Offender Management schemes,
both of which provide intensive support and access to wrap-around
services. Given that the relatively small number of offenders
in such schemes are responsible for large volumes of offences,
and given that many schemes have delivered reductions in predicted
offending, it is highly desirable that Trusts are resourced to
work with those prolific offenders who currently would receive
a short custodial sentence of under 12 months and who would not
currently be subject to statutory supervision by Trusts.
35. Some Trusts commission local voluntary agencies
to support their work with ethnic minority offenders and
to ensure that the services provided meet the needs of these groups.
Staff from these agencies are often co-located in Trust offices
and have full access to the Trust's information. Trusts organise
their groupwork provision, including community payback services,
to ensure that they are delivered with sensitivity. Trusts also
monitor the proposals in their court reports and the resulting
sentencing outcomes, which are shared with courts.
36. With regard to risk, Trusts use structured
assessment and targeting tools to ensure that risk issues are
identified and that resource is matched to the level of risk and
need. Evidence shows that accredited programmes are most effective
when targeted at medium risk offenders, and so Trusts use
the targeting matrices to ensure that suitable medium risk offenders
access these programmes. Accredited programmes and specified activities
complement the individual work undertaken by supervising officers,
who co-ordinate the whole package of services to such offenders.
37. Structured assessments and targeting matrices
are applied to high risk offenders also. Such offenders
are managed via Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
and are accorded the highest level of attention and resource.
Trusts ensure that individual risk levels in these cases are reviewed
regularly, and they monitor the quality of risk assessments. The
MAPPA model is widely regarded as an effective method of managing
high risk offenders, and as a Responsible Authority within MAPPA,
Probation activity is central. In a number of areas, it is Probation
that chairs the MAPPA strategic management board, for example.
38. No system can eliminate risk entirely, but
MAPPA activity has resulted in a rate of less than 1% reoffending
by those already assessed as dangerous.
39. With regard to offenders who pose a high
risk of reoffending, the involvement of Trusts has been essential
to the success of prolific offender schemes and Integrated Offender
management schemes, which have shown marked reductions in actual
versus predicted offending. Trusts are responsible for the offender
management of the vast majority of such cases.
Is the provision of training adequate?
40. The new Probation Qualifying Framework (PQF)
has enhanced the ability of Probation Trusts to engage in effective
workforce planning. This means that Probation Trusts can use anticipated
workload to plan for the number and skill mix of employees required
to deliver services.
41. The PQF offers the facility of a professionally
qualified workforce before the grade of Probation Officer. It
also offers increased flexibility in terms of career pathways
and routes available to ultimately qualify as a Probation Officer.
However, it is too soon to assess the effectiveness of the PQF.
42. Effective practice training is delivered
on a regional basis and is often provided by Trust practitioners.
This has the advantage of retaining relevance to current practice.
However, in times of reducing resources there may be issues about
releasing these employees to deliver training. Work demands may
also make it more difficult to release employees to attend learning
and development events.
43. Our technology does not support the use
of on line learning on desk tops (e-learning). Such flexible provision
will become more necessary if Trusts are to use their resources
more efficiently.
44. There is a potential concern in relation
to future national capacity as budget cuts may lead Trusts to
reduce their commitment to investment in the PQF and other learning
and development activity. This may lead to a potential shortfall
in qualified probation officers, who manage the most dangerous
offenders and who write the most complex reports for courts. This
would have implications for public safety.
45. Additionally, there needs to be a sustained
investment in developing the strategic, leadership, and business
skills of senior managers, who will be operating in an increasing
complex and competitive environment. One way that this could be
assured would be to transfer NOMS resources for senior management
development to Trusts.
September 2010
| 
