Written evidence from Leicestershire and
Rutland Probation Trust (PB 25)
SUMMARY
1. Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Trust
was one of the six first wave Probation Trusts which were established
in April 2008 and took on the business of the former Leicestershire
and Rutland Probation Board. This submission draws on our experience
to inform recommendations for the future commissioning of Probation
Services.
2. As a top performing, innovative Probation
Trust with a strong record of partnership working, we consider
that Probation Services are commissioned best locally so they
can be responsive to local needs and demands. Probation Trusts
should be freed up to agree local performance targets with partners
to address local concerns. Management of offenders should be seamless,
integrating interventions and joining up provision across the
criminal justice system. Greater attention should be given to
the provision of mental health services for offenders using a
place-based budgeting approach. As a commissioner, Probation Trusts
would be well placed to bring together voluntary, private and
public sector efforts into an effective supply chain delivering
consistent offender rehabilitation services. A move away from
short custodial sentences will require a shift of resources from
imprisonment to community sentencing if offending is to be reduced
and the public protected. There is clear scope for more reparative
solutions as alternative sanctions and at each stage of the criminal
justice process. Whilst the voluntary sector can play a useful
role in the provision of a differentiated service to some groups
of offenders it is crucially important that the management of
the more risky offenders remains within the public sector to ensure
effective accountability. New training arrangements are in place
for Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers, attention
now needs to be given to developing arrangements for training
the managers of the future.
Are Probation Services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
3. The Trust has an extensive knowledge of the
local community, the requirements of local sentencers, the needs
of offenders and the range of local organisations which can provide
services for offenders. As a first wave trust, we have sought
to develop our role as a local commissioner working with local
partners to commission a range of services to rehabilitate offenders,
including employment services, drug and alcohol treatment, housing
related support, health services and arrangements for Integrated
Offender Management for adult offenders released from short prison
sentences. As an active member of Local Strategic Partnerships
and Community Safety Partnerships, the Trust has ensured that
Reducing Reoffending has been a top priority and enabled Leicester
and Leicestershire to achieve Beacon Status for Reducing Reoffending.
It is estimated that at least 50% of the services that offenders
need to enable effective rehabilitation are not funded by the
Ministry of Justice but through other government departments,
and strong local partnership working is needed to ensure that
offenders can access these effectively. This Trust has a long
history of partnership working and in 2008 achieved the British
Quality Foundation's award for Partnership Development.
4. Regional commissioning of Probation Services
has, to date, added little to what can be achieved locally, though
there is potential for facilitating improved working between Prisons
and Probation in the delivery of rehabilitation services.
Recommendation
5. We recommend that consideration is given to
establishing local Probation Trusts as the commissioners of Probation
Services on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.
How effectively are Probation Trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the Probation Services in delivering
"offender management" and how does it work in practice?
6. Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Trust
has been a top performing Trust since it's establishment, and
several years prior to this as a Probation Board. It has achieved
the top rating for performance for the past four years and has
received extremely positive reports from the Probation Inspectorate
in the last two Offender Management Inspections. It has been Recognised
for Excellence by the British Quality Foundation and has achieved
the Customer Service Excellence Award.
7. In the most recent inspection, the inspectors
commented on the 'culture of continuous improvement that permeated
the Trust'. This continued high level of performance is attributed
to strong effective local leadership, robust systems for performance
management, positive management, staff and union relations, good
working with local partnerships and a "can do" culture.
Through working with local partners, we have now, for the first
time, achieved a statistically reduction in reoffending in Leicester
of 9% in the past year.
8. Whilst completing the Trust application process
during two iterations has helped to focus the organisation's strategic
and organisational development planning, the promised freedoms
that being a Trust were supposed to provide have failed to materialise.
Recommendation
9. We recommend that Probation Trusts be given
more freedom to agree outcome focused performance targets in conjunction
with local partners which contribute to reductions in re-offending
and which support effective sentencing.
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
10. The Trust was one of the first to fully implement
the Offender Management Model. For us this means providing consistent,
continuous, integrated supervision of offenders from appearance
in Court through assessment and sentence whether in the community
or in custody. We have extended this model to drug and alcohol
misusing offenders to provide end to end services from the point
of arrest at the police station through to completion of sentence.
Consultation with offenders has shown that they value a consistent
service and we have ensured through effective offender or "case"
management that the range of interventions and the work of various
providers is consolidated into appropriately sequenced and coherent
plans. Local Community Safety Partnerships have provided funding
from Area Based Grant for a limited period to extend this offender
management to the more risky offenders released from prison without
supervision and offenders are prioritised in conjunction with
the Police and other partners.
Recommendation
11. We recommend that arrangements for offender
management are maintained and extended when funding permits to
ensure that offenders' experience of supervision is continuous
and integrated, with a single offender manager responsible for
achieving an effective service to individual offenders.
Are Magistrates and Judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that can be attached to Community Sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
12. In Leicestershire and Rutland sentencers
can access a full range of requirements without difficulty, with
the single exception of Mental Health Treatment Requirements.
Provision for alcohol treatment has been problematic in the past
but through a Total Place project delivered by local partners
that has focussed on drug and alcohol services; increased funding
is being made available to provide coherent alcohol treatment
pathways on the basis that this will provide future savings for
Criminal Justice and Health Services. We are now beginning to
examine the barriers to the effective commissioning of mental
health services for offenders in the community in the light of
Lord Bradley's recommendations, but this is being further compounded
by imminent health service reforms.
13. Through close liaison with Sentencers and
local partners, we are able to ensure that the range of provision
they require is available. The Trust is focussed on ensuring that
orders are completed as intended and completion rates are increasing.
72% of orders are now completed successfully, including 77% of
Unpaid Work Requirements. Where requirements are not completed,
offenders are returned to court swiftly.
Recommendation
14 We would recommend that there is a renewed
focus on taking forward Lord Bradley's recommendations regarding
mental health services for offenders. We would also recommend
that the responsibility for liaison with Magistrates and Judges
remains with local Probation Trusts.
What role should the private and voluntary sectors
play in the delivery of Probation Services?
15. As a Trust, and before that as a Board, Leicestershire
and Rutland has a long history of effective working with voluntary
sector organisations. Most recently as lead provider, we have
brought together a consortium of voluntary, public and private
sector organisations to deliver a multi-million pound European
Social Funded Programme (REACH) across the East Midlands, aimed
at improving offenders" skills and moving them into employment.
We work with a social enterprise to deliver a Learning Café
to improve offenders" skills in the catering trades. We also
work with charities providing housing related support and with
a range of organisations including voluntary and private sector
bodies, and social enterprises which provide supervision or placements
for offenders on Community Payback (Unpaid Work). We are developing
our supply chain of local voluntary sector organisations which
can bring specific skills to bear to assist with the delivery
of Probation Services. We have been particularly grateful for
the role that the private sector has played through Leicestershire
Cares (an offshoot of Business in the Community) which has provided
work placements for offenders, the majority of whom have subsequently
gone on into full-time employment.
16. From our experience there is a balance to
be struck between the skills and abilities of the different sectors.
Whilst the private sector has more resources behind it, and can
produce long-term innovation, it is not necessarily the cheapest
option and we have experienced difficulties with expensive national
facilities management contracts which have provided poor service.
The voluntary sector can be flexible and innovative and good at
providing local solutions, yet it does need support to maximise
its potential, and when full cost recovery is taken into account
can be more expensive as it does not necessarily have the economies
of scale available to the public sector.
17. Probation Trusts are hindered from being
competitive by expensive national contracts for premises, IT and
facilities management. The lack of year-end financial flexibility,
inability to borrow and build up reserves
means that they have difficulty in competing
for contracts which are geared to payment by results as they present
significant cash flow difficulties.
Recommendation
18. We recommend that Probation Trusts are freed
up from some of the current constraints that make it difficult
for them to commission more effectively from the voluntary and
private sectors, and as a provider to compete on an equal footing.
Trusts require 3 year budgets with year end flexibility and freedom
to move away from national estates, facilities management and
IT contracts that make them uncompetitive.
Does the Probation Service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
19. As a Trust with a strong commitment to reducing
the harm to the community from re-offending, we would like to
offer more provision for offenders as an effective alternative
to short custodial sentences. In the short term, whilst the demand
for community and licence supervision remains high, and with significant
budget reductions being required, this will be very problematic.
The problem is likely to be exacerbated by loss of other funding
streams, such as Area Based Grant which has been used to provide
additional services for the more problematic offenders through
Prolific and Priority Offender schemes in conjunction with the
local police. Over time if demand on the criminal justice system
can be managed down through diversion of less serious offenders
from the courts and prisons, then Trusts will be better able to
respond. At present the Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Trust
certainly has the trained and experienced staff to manage the
more problematic offenders and the structures, systems and management
necessary to reduce the risk they pose without exposing the public
to an unacceptable level of risk of re-offending.
Recommendation
20. If Trusts are to manage more offenders as
an alternative to short custodial sentences, then an appropriate
level of resources will need to be found, including making up
for the loss of other funding streams currently used to manage
the most prolific offenders, such as Area Based Grant.
Could Probation Trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
21 As an innovative Trust working in partnership
with others, we would be very keen to make more use of restorative
justice. It is already used by the local police as an alternative
to prosecution and has received very positive local media coverage.
Community Payback is directed to addressing the concerns of local
citizens through citizens panels which nominate projects to be
completed. There is however, a tension in the delivery of Community
Payback between responding to citizens' concerns, providing a
cheap punishment and rehabilitating offenders. For us the punishment
is completing the required hours, rigorously enforcing compliance
as necessary. The more offenders can see how they are making reparation
to the community, the more the work has meaning and can be seen
to benefit specific beneficiaries, the more rehabilitative it
is likely to be. There are also opportunities for making supervision
more directly reparative, as is evidenced in the Youth Justice
System, where bringing victims and offenders together can, if
managed carefully, lead to some closure for victims and a commitment
from some offenders to reform.
Recommendation
22. We would encourage the government to make
more use of restorative justice. Probation Trusts are well placed
to affect this in partnership with other agencies and in particular
the voluntary sector using trained mediators and volunteers where
appropriate.
Does the Probation Service handle different groups
of offenders appropriately, eg women, young adults, black and
minority ethnic offenders and high and medium risk offenders?
23. Women
As a Trust we deliver an accredited programme for
women convicted of acquisitive crime and a programme for violent
women. We also work in partnership with a voluntary sector project
funded by the Ministry of Justice to deliver a one-stop shop for
women at all stages in the criminal justice system. We recognise
that women in general have different patterns of offending than
men, different social circumstances, and different need profiles
which must be addressed appropriately to achieve effective rehabilitation.
24. Young Adults
We are concerned to ensure that there is a smooth
transition from youth to adult services and therefore work with
our local Youth Offending Teams to effect good handovers of the
management arrangements and support services for those who are
still in the criminal justice system at age 18 and therefore in
danger of continued offending.
25. Black and Minority Ethnic Offenders
As a Trust serving a large minority ethnic population
in Leicester, we are committed to achieving a representative staff
group, responsive services, good community links and effective
communication of the work of the service.
26. High and Medium Risk Offenders
As a public sector provider and a responsible authority
for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, we give the highest
priority to the effective supervision of offenders likely to cause
the most harm to the public in conjunction with other MAPPA partners;
the Police, local authorities, and health services. In particular
we prioritise interventions for sex offenders, those convicted
of domestic violence and the mentally ill. We accommodate many
of these offenders initially in our own approved premises (hostels)
where they can be closely supervised and then work with local
authorities to ensure they are accommodated appropriately subsequently.
We have our own psychology service which is able to assess and
treat some of the most complex cases, and floating housing support
to ensure close support for those in their own tenancies in conjunction
with the Supporting People programme.
Recommendation
27. We recommend that Probation Trusts as local
commissioners be encouraged to ensure an appropriate and differentiated
service which is responsive to the needs of each group of offenders,
using the resources of community organisations where appropriate.
However we firmly believe that the management of the most risky
offenders should remain with the public sector because of the
need to ensure clear lines of accountability for delivering services
to these individuals.
Is the provision of training adequate?
28. The Diploma for Probation Studies Programme
has served us well for the past decade and the new Probation Qualifying
Framework looks promising, although as it is only just coming
into operation it is too early to say how successful it will be.
We have managed to retain the vast majority of the staff who we
have trained and would hope that any changes to the commissioning
of probation would not result in a loss of trained staff, where
there has been considerable investment of resources. The gap we
perceive is in the development of the future managers of the service.
The Probation Inspectorate have just given the Trust the highest
possible rating for effective management, which reflects the considerable
investment we have made in managers gaining formal qualifications
through university post graduate public management programme and
other courses.
29. These have been arranged at a local and regional
level. We consider that a more consistent national framework
is required geared to the needs of future probation managers,
with particular reference to commissioning public services and
leading in partnership.
Recommendation
30. We would recommend a review of management
training for probation managers to enable them to operate effectively
in the complex environment of the criminal justice system and
local partnership arrangements.
September 2010
| 
