The role of the Probation Service - Justice Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 27 July 2011