Memorandum submitted by Thames Valley
Probation (PB 26)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 TVP does not consider the current commissioning
arrangements to be the most appropriate because they are not locally
determined and are not those most likely to contribute to effective
and responsive local partnerships, particularly with the voluntary
sector.
1.2 TVP delivers effective offender management,
and this is evidenced by the latest re-offending data and the
recent inspection report. The delivery includes a mix of in house
provision, and services from the private, voluntary and statutory
sectors to reflect local need and circumstances.
1.3 Judges and magistrates in the Thames Valley
are able to use all the requirements except those for attendance
centres. Sentencer satisfaction with the options and services
is high and they express confidence in the reports they receive
and in the way the sentences are managed locally. This confidence
is reflected in relatively low rates of imprisonment locally.
1.4 TVP already works with the private and voluntary
sectors and could do so more effectively if commissioning were
more locally owned and determined and less centrally driven.
1.5 TVP already works with some non-statutory
cases who have served short prison sentences under the auspices
of the local Priority Offender and Integrated Offender Management
arrangements, and will continue to find effective ways to target
those offenders most at risk of further offending, balancing the
need for resources to reflect risk and for the expectations of
sentencers to be met.
1.6 TVP is the leading probation Trust in relation
to the provision of effective restorative justice and believes
it has developed a model which could be nationally replicated,
and could be further developed if partners within the criminal
justice system and the wider community were suitably encouraged
by government.
1.7 TVP has worked hard to provide responsive
and sensitive services to women offenders, young adults, BME offenders,
and those offenders presenting high and medium risk of harm and/or
likelihood of re-offending.
1.8 The new training arrangements offer some
significant advantages for those seeking professional development
and for probation Trusts, but the new funding arrangements must
reflect the need for learning and development within each area,
and must not provide Trusts with perverse incentives to train
fewer people and simply recruit trained staff from other areas.
2. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way? No
2.1 The current commissioning model is removed
from the demand arising from local courts and from the concerns
of local communities. Crime is committed locally, it impacts locally,
and solutions need to be developed locally. The contribution of
Trusts lies in their expert understanding of local offending and
local offenders which spans what is often a divide between the
criminal justice system and other local service provision.
2.2 National framework and regional target setting
processes constrain the discussions that TVP is able to have with
local partners, and reduce the scope for local variation or movement
of resources across the area. Local partners want to be able to
allocate priority and resources by local agreement. The regional
arrangements in form of the NOMS Directors of Offender Management
is an unnecessary tier which has the potential to hinder local
relationships and the authority to TVP as a Trust negotiating
with key partners.
2.3 The focus should be on local commissioning
of services to reflect local need delivered increasingly through
local partnership working. It should be based upon a shared local
strategic assessment which includes contributions from Judges
and Magistrates. (This need is increased now that local Magistrates
cannot sit as full members of probation Trust Boards). In Thames
Valley it should be the local probation Trust responsible for
commissioning or providing local services with its partners from
the statutory, private or voluntary sector.
2.4 Commissioning probation by local authority
would be too low a level, given there are nine local authorities
in Thames Valley and cross border issues would be complex. Economies
of scale and strategic approach would be lost. However some commissioning
by Trusts may be most appropriately done at the Local Delivery
Unit level because of the scope of the other partners involved
or the very local nature of the service being sought. Whilst some
national schemes, such as curfews, can be commissioned nationally,
third sector services are better commissioned locally.
2.5 Integrated Offender Management (IOM) is the
model of how offenders should be managed locally, with the police
providing disruption and surveillance activities, probation providing
the through the gate offender management and co-ordination and
other partners contributing to rehabilitation plans. The prison
service is not linked into local services (because the prisoner
population is not based in local prisons) so there is a need for
probation services to be separated from its current relationship
with HMPS, and be more closely allied to local police, health,
accommodation and social care provision.
3. 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?
3.1 Since becoming a Trust in April 2010, TVP
has achieved significant financial savings whilst maintaining
front line services to victims, offenders and communities.
3.2 TVP is performing effectively across all
four domains in the Probation Trust Rating System. The latest
figures published in relation to reducing re-offending overall,
and by Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) in particular,
demonstrate the positive impact being achieved for the people
and the communities of the Thames Valley. It was subject to inspection
by HMIP in April 2010 and achieved an "encouraging"
report that praised local leadership, local partnership arrangements,
and improved practice in relation to public probation and the
reduction in likelihood of re-offending. The concurrent OFSTED
inspection praised TVP's arrangements for offender training and
employment. At the same time surveys of local Judges and Magistrates
demonstrate high and improving levels of satisfaction and confidence.
3.3 TVP staff deliver reports to the courts and
to the parole board, and provide the assessment, planning, management,
enforcement and ongoing risk assessment of offenders. Interventions
to address offending related need in order to change offenders'
attitudes and behaviour are currently delivered either by probation
staff, or by multi agency arrangements with police and local authority
partner agencies under the Integrated Offender Management arrangements,
or by individual or joint commissioning of specific drug, or alcohol,
or accommodation, or health services, from the public, private
or voluntary sectors.
3.4 The few highest risk offenders are effectively
managed by probation staff, working within the strong local Multi-Agency
Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) arrangements, and TVP manages
five approved premises to provide enhanced levels of surveillance,
supervision, engagement and support for those presenting the highest
risk of harm to the public.
4. Are Magistrates and Judges able to utilise
fully the requirement that can be attached to Community Sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
4.1 Courts in Thames Valley currently use the
full range of Community Sentence requirements except for adult
attendance centres. We have five approved premises for those whose
risk requires higher levels of surveillance. Courts make use of
curfew requirements involving electronic monitoring. Drug rehabilitation
requirements are extensively used by local sentencers and they
are able to review their success. Requirements for psychiatric
and psychological treatment are less frequently used, in part
reflecting inconsistency in public provision.
4.2 In terms of specified activities TVP has
in place interventions in relation to restorative justice, employment
training and education, alcohol treatment, and a compliance programme
called Back on Track, and is able to offer focused work on racially
motivated crime, finance benefit and debt, victim awareness, etc.
4.3 IOM arrangements with police and other partners
mean that TVP puts in place enhanced levels of interaction and
oversight for those offenders most likely to re-offend, including
some who are not currently statutory cases (having served short
prison sentences as adults for example).
5. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
5.1 The core offender management functions of
risk assessment and advice to courts and the parole board, the
management of public protection cases within the MAPPA and MARAC
and safeguarding frameworks, and the planning and enforcement
of cases based on accountable professional judgement should properly
remain within the probation Trusts. This makes multi agency working
more effective, and ensures that it is offender or victim risks
and needs (rather than target based contracts) that are at the
core of decision making. The organisational risks inherent in
the responsibility for the management of offenders in the community
should remain publicly accountable and externally inspected.
5.2 Specific interventions can and should be
provided by whatever agency or organisation can do them most effectively,
with the greatest economy. Locally the private sector provides
some accommodation, some security/monitoring (within approved
premises) and the curfew requirements (under the electronic monitoring
contract). The not for profit/voluntary sector provides some mental
health support, some drug treatment (under joint commissioning
arrangements), some alcohol provision, some family focused provision,
offender learning and training.
5.3 The voluntary sector is also able to support
individual offenders with more specific needs—including
close support from AA, or from specific local communities (Somali
community in Milton Keynes, or Asylum Welcome in Oxford).
5.4 We are also building on good existing arrangements
for the use of volunteers working with offenders to support them
more intensively or during the latter stages of supervision and
community re-integration. This includes a contract with SOVA (training
and employability), the establishment of a voluntary body—New
Leaf - to work with short sentenced prisoners on release in Buckinghamshire,
and we are developing similar services across the area. We were
instrumental in setting up the Hampshire and Thames Valley Circles
of Support and Accountability. We have some long term local partners
from the voluntary sector such as The Elmore team in Oxford for
mental health support, Bucks Association for the Care of Offenders
for prisoners pre and post release, Thames Valley Partnership—in
developing a range of community safety initiatives, Parents and
Children Together—for the Reading based Womens Centre, and
the Elizabeth Fry charity for the provision of the voluntary approved
premise for women in Reading.
5.5 It is the local nature of these providers
that is especially notable—and valuable—because they
are integrated into broader local services and core pathways,
and individualised and personalised services are their forte.
The voluntary sector also benefits substantially from the long
term provision of unpaid work under Community Payback.
5.6 Delivery of high volume non-intensive and
pre-specified services is probably best susceptible to private
sector involvement and equally more likely to offer an attractive
business proposition to them.
6. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences? In Part
6.1 As the only provider of specialist probation
services, probation Trusts have absorbed variations in demand
before, but not previously within such a difficult financial environment.
6.2 Currently TVP is working with partners under
the Integrated Offender Management Arrangements to engage with
short sentenced adult prisoners on release, even though they are
not statutory cases. Provided these resources are retained when
the use of short sentences reduces then there is some capacity
already to work with those dealt with differently by the courts.
6.3 TVP has already made progress in impacting
on the numbers serving such sentences, especially women, through
careful targeting, more intensive interaction by case trackers,
a Women's Centre, the Back on Track programme, etc. TVP also seeks
to free up its resources by encouraging the greater use by courts
of curfews and fines.
6.4 Reduced budgets must mean less overall provision
by TVP as well as less capacity to commission and purchase services.
TVP is committed to ensuring that those supervised are dealt with
in line with minimum national expectations, but are prioritised
in relation to risk to the public first, and then likelihood of
re-offending and concomitant offending related need.
6.5 That said, some re-investment from savings
in the prison service budget would be required to balance the
anticipated cuts to current funding, both for Trusts and those
who provide other services that offenders are known to need if
re-offending is to be reduced.
7. Could probation Trusts make more use of
restorative justice? Yes
7.1 There has been multi agency involvement in
RJ in the Thames Valley for some 15 years, involving the police,
youth offending, conditional cautioning, sentenced prisoners in
custody and by TVP. In the last 10 years an attempt was made to
establish a Restorative Justice Service at arms length from the
statutory agencies, part funded through the LCJB, but indications
of lack of sustainability from government meant that no voluntary
body was willing to take on this function.
7.2 TVP were involved as one of the three research
sites funded by government to research the impact of several different
RJ models. The research was led by Professors Sherman and Strang,
and an assurance and value for money study was undertaken by Professor
Shapland.
7.3 There were two different strands to the research
in TVP related to:
7.3.1 offences of violence where offenders were
made subject to community sentences with a specified activity
requirement. Sentencers support this well, they have confidence
in it and the results in relation to the community project indicate
a 55% reduction in the rate of re-offending (the highest of all
the pilots but not statistically significant due to numbers);
and
7.3.2 similar offenders, but where a custodial
sentence was imposed (mostly prisoners at Bullingdon prison).
The reduction in the rate of re-offending for the prison pilot
was 33%.
7.4 In the two Thames Valley studies 78% of victims
who took part said they would recommend it to others and 72% said
the conference provided them with a sense of closure.
7.5 The overall findings of the three national
schemes were a 36% reduction in the rate of re-offending—a
statistically significant result—compared to the control
group.
7.6 The schemes in Northumbria and London have
ended, but the scheme run by TVP has continued to operate with
the full support of local Judges and Magistrates and been expanded
to include offences of domestic burglary.
7.7 In 2010, TVP's Restorative Justice scheme
was given the award by the Howard League for Penal Reform in the
effective community justice category.
7.8 TVP believes that restorative justice specified
activity requirements could be made available to courts by all
probation Trusts, and some other Trusts already include an RJ
facility within their Intensive Alternative to Custody schemes.
Although our current role limits our scheme to post sentence cases
we believe that all personal crime victims should have the opportunity
to register their interest in restorative justice at any stage
during the criminal justice process, including diversion for less
serious offences, conditional cautioning and deferred sentences,
as well as post sentence. In TVP we already take referrals from
our victim liaison unit to undertake conferences where victims
of serious violent crimes express an interest in this within the
context of the planning for the release of offenders, thus helping
to reduce victims' fears at the pre-release and post-release stages.
7.9 TVP would welcome encouragement and financial
support for the voluntary sector to provide RJ interventions at
any stage in a case. An agency operating at arms length would
ensure that due weight is given to the needs of the victim as
well as the offender.
8. 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?
Yes
8.1 Women: TVP is providing an increasingly
effective service to women offenders through the presence of women's
champions in all areas of service delivery, the establishment
of a women's centre in Reading within the recent Corston funding
stream, and we have an approved premise for women run by the voluntary
sector. Feedback to offender surveys for women and in the recent
inspection are good.
8.2 Young Adults: Young adults form a
significant group in our identified Priority Offender and Integrated
Offender Management cohorts and those offenders are in receipt
of a tracker service which involves a higher intensity of engagement;
our current increased emphasis on offender engagement is in part
aimed at greater efforts to successfully engage and intervene
with this age group.
8.3 BME offenders: we have the 6th highest
volume of BME offenders in the country but they are dispersed
and in urban centres that are far apart. We seek to engage with
local voluntary sector provision where it is available (eg Somali
young offenders in Milton Keynes). We analyse most of our services
and key outcomes by race and ethnicity and there are some apparent
disproportionalities which we are seeking to address. Generally
there is little evidence of disproportionality in offender feedback
surveys.
8.4 High risk offenders: see 3.4 above.
8.5 Medium risk offenders: Provision of
offender management was commended in the recent inspection. We
seek to ensure that intensity and investment of staff time reflects
risk and need profiles of offenders. As resources reduce this
prioritisation will become rather more stark. We are developing
local supervision centres for medium risk offenders, and seek
to provide relevant but less intense specified activities in each
area.
9. Is the provision of training adequate?
9.1 Provided the new Probation Qualification
Framework has sufficient funding to train the necessary numbers
in each of the training routes over the next three to five years
then there should be enough effectively trained and developed
staff to meet the needs of probation services providers operating
in whatever sector. Some shortfalls will occur while the new framework
settles down, especially in areas of relatively high turnover
such as Thames Valley. We do believe that the new framework will
provide better in house and degree level training than the previous
model, that access routes to the training are more open and transparent,
and that succession planning over the longer term will be more
easily managed.
September 2010
| 
