Written evidence from Durham Tees Valley
Probation Trust (PB 37)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The submission from Durham Tees Valley Probation
Trust seeks to answer the questions posed on the role of the Probation
Service as clearly as possible and with brevity. We have also,
as requested by Sir Alan, during his recent visit to the North
East, provided a submission which seeks to identify some of the
barriers to working in ways recognised as being effective in reducing
reoffending and costs.
This submission is underpinned by an understanding
that the public are mistrustful of current sentencing arrangements.
We believe the Criminal Justice System requires change which the
public can accept and which involve:
— A clear
focus on the development of outcome driven strategies (reducing
reoffending) based on research evidence and which is cost beneficial
in so far as resources are matched to the level of risk posed
by offenders.
— The
highest intensity of supervision should be concentrated on the
highest risk offenders with less supervision with low risk offenders.
— Research
evidence which shows levels of supervision for low risk offenders,
in partnership with our Community Partners, can be reduced without
increasing the risk of reoffending.
— Durham
Tees Valley Trust's structured supervision programme which has
been shown to be statistically significant in reducing reoffending.
It has under gone peer review evaluation by a top international
journal and publication is imminent.
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
1.1 The Offender Management Act 2007 provided
for Probation Services to be commissioned by the DOM and delivered
under Contract.
The aspirations that contracts be more reflective
of local needs and risks has not materialised. Central control
and influence over Contract content and volumes has remained,
largely, unaltered. It is not clear whether the capacity for a
shift from central to locally determined volumes is available
for 2011-12. In the context of Contract discussions and negotiations
there has been no movement towards increased local dialogue about
the delivery of Probation Services which are effective in reducing
reoffending.
2. How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivery
of "offender management". How does it operate in practice?
Probation Trusts In Practice
2.1 Probation Trusts differ little materially
from Probation Boards. It is not obvious to Trusts that Probation
Governance is understood and appreciated by NOMS.
2.2 This might be due to:
— Trusts
not yet being subject to less regulation and proper autonomy to
operate at arms length from Government as a NDPB (ie being less
risk averse and better at managing risk).
— Trusts
having no freedom to control their own finances by, for example,
being granted year end flexibility.
— Trusts
having no freedom to control the regime within which offenders
are managed.
— Having
no different scope to be more innovative and outwardly focused
(ie entering into joint ventures and starting social enterprises
when these offered best solutions.
2.3 Trusts are demonstrating the capability
to work more efficiently. Trusts have "delayered" and
achieved greater efficiencies. Processes driving this (ie Specification
Benchmarking and Costing Programme) take little note of effectiveness
of services delivered).
2.4 Trusts are required to respond to the "law
of unintended consequences" ie being required to manage complex
and time consuming issues such as VAT and Corporation Tax.
Probation Trusts and Offender Management
2.5 The term Offender Management is ambiguous.
Current arrangements are overly complex and bureaucratic. It is
not clear if the main purpose of Offender Management is to "administer"
an offender through the different requirements of his/her sentence
(ie is a background to other programming) or to be instrumental
in addressing offending behaviour (ie is about effectiveness and
is focused on outcomes).
2.6 The emphasis at present is on the former.
This reflects a Performance and Management regime which emphasises
outputs rather than outcomes. It results in the majority of Probation
Staff who directly supervise offenders doing so as a background
to other "programming". This involves administering
and/or brokering the activity of the minority of staff who deliver
this "other programming" (ie Accredited Programmes;
Community Payback).
2.7 There is an urgent need for Offender Management
to be more directly concerned with addressing offending behaviour
with the aim of achieving improved outcomes (rates of reoffending).
2.8 If the improved outcomes delivered by the
adoption of "evidence based" supervision of offenders
is to be realised, this approach needs to be taken "to scale".
To achieve this, supervision of offenders should be:
— Structured.
— Cognitive—behavioural.
— Delivered
with integrity.
2.9 To achieve this, greater flexibility within
a less regulated Performance and Management framework is required
(see comments "Probation Trusts in Practice").
How does it operate in practice?
2.10 The majority of Offender Managers time is
currently devoted to the administration of Order and Licences.
It acts as a background to other programming. In Durham Tees Valley,
we are committed to evidence based practice. Our wish is to employ
methods that can be shown to reduce reoffending. Durham Tees Valley
has a structured supervision programme, Citizenship. This has,
through independent evaluation been shown statistically to be
effective in reducing reoffending. Our model has been accepted
for publication by a top international journal having gone through
a process of peer review.
3. Are Magistrates' and Judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
3.1 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for
a range of requirements to be included in community orders, not
all of which are managed by the Probation Service, some are dependant
upon Services commissioned from partner agencies or organisations.
Best examples of this are Health in respect of Drug and Alcohol
Treatment Requirements. Most requirements can be utilised fully
be sentencers but the following constraints are noted:
— some
areas have no or only partial access to Senior Attendance Centre
provision;
— some
Probation Trusts are unable in all or part of their areas to offer
requirements in relation to Mental Health Treatment, Alcohol Treatment
or Drug Treatment;
— there
are variances between areas in the use of electronic monitored
curfews, particularly to re-inforce other elements of a community
order or as an additional more onerous requirement following failure
to comply;
— provision
of accredited programmes is currently driven by targets set by
the commissioners. These reflect centrally determined volumes,
reflective of budget rather than local need and risk and not by
need as assessed by Trusts advising Sentencers. Improved understanding
and legislative initiatives have combined to create significant
supply and demand issues for programmes addressing Domestic Violence
and Sex Offending;
— areas,
particularly smaller ones, cannot always start offenders on an
accredited programme within the timescale that sentencers find
acceptable. There exists a significant and growing tension between
the need to manage Accredited Programmes efficiently and Audit
Standards which are prison centre and uncosted; and
— the
increase in the number of offenders with limited comprehension
of English who therefore need interpreters has in some areas,
particularly rural ones, limited their access to some provision
such as accredited programmes and Community Payback.
3.2 Areas are able to provide sentencers with
a wide range of Specified Activity Requirements to address issues
such as lower level alcohol misuse, debt and money management,
compliance and parenting skills. Areas have developed a range
of provision for women offenders, thus reflecting a commitment
to Corsten.
3.3 In 2009-10 the Probation Service nationally
delivered its best ever set of performance results. These demonstrate
that increasingly the whole range of interventions delivered under
community orders are completed successfully.
3.4 Where offenders fail to comply, orders are
rigorously enforced, a process which has been transformed over
the last ten years. Probation staff have also developed approaches
which are about achieving offender compliance, enforcement is
used as one of a range of means to secure compliance. Probation
staff have sought effective ways to ensure that offenders do not
breach their orders. These include a more thorough exploration
with individual offenders at induction of factors which might
inhibit compliance (eg employment, child or dependant care responsibilities)
and the use of text messaging to remind offenders of their appointments.
3.5 Whilst there is still some scope to ensure
that all the requirements in a community order are available and
fully utilised nationally, when requirements are made sentencers
can have confidence that they will be delivered as expected and,
where necessary, rigorously enforced.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of Probation Services?
4.1 The range and nature of needs and risks posed
by offenders mean Probation Trusts cannot address these alone.
We need the support, involvement and contribution of other sectors,
particularly as we move to a more outcome based performance framework.
4.2 Durham Tees Valley believes and has evidence
to support, that offenders risk of reoffending is reduced when
"other", community based organisations are involved
in their management. Durham Tees Valley is supportive of a greater
involvement for other sectors, where that involvement can demonstrably
improve outcomes.
4.3 Durham Tees Valley believes this involvement
can be facilitated through Probation as "Lead Provider".
Trusts should be enabled to Commission Services which improve
effectiveness and efficiency. Structures which embed Trusts in
partnership with local agencies should be maintained and strengthened.
This can be achieved through further local partnership arrangements
under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and exploiting Probation's
position as a Responsible Authority.
4.4 Trusts should be required to develop transparent
and robust Commissioning arrangements based on recognised methodologies.
5. Does the Probation Service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
5.1 Capacity is a balance between available resource
and an ability to prioritise in pursuit of an outcome, in this
case reducing reoffending. The argument about limited resources
is accepted in almost all areas of public service. It does not
appear to be accepted in respect of sentencing. The case is made
and the system currently operates in the context that sentencing
should not be linked to resources and the justice system should
be allowed to impose the appropriate sentence without being constrained
by availability of resources or the effectiveness of those sentences.
5.2 If demand exceeds supply/availability of
services, interventions and levels of supervision that can be
provided are reduced. It would be more satisfactory if this allocation
process was managed effectively at the point of sentence and that
the Probation Service was consulted on issues of risk levels and
quantity of care that were in their scope to manage effectively.
6. Could Probation Trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
6.1 The short answer is yes. The long answer
is concerned with clarity about what is meant by "restorative
justice" and what outcome of restorative justice is sought.
In common with the themes expressed in this submission (see Executive
Summary) we would see a place for restorative justice if the outcomes
sought were clear and understood (victim satisfaction, offender
contrition, victim compensation, reduced levels of reoffending)
and achieved by the schemes/arrangements adopted.
7. 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?
7.1 The issues at the heart of this question
is the extent to which different groups of offenders require different
means of management reflecting the different needs driving their
offending and the risk associated with those needs. Understanding
the different issues driving offending by different groups is
a pre requisite component of managing these needs and risk. A
capability to "differentiate" these needs and risks
at a local level is essential. The delegation of discretion to
Probation Chief Executives is required to ensure a more "responsive"
approach in pursuit of a common outcome goal. The effectiveness
of discretion exercised should not only be judged by achievement
of defined actions but also by HMIP.
8. Is the provision of training adequate?
8.1 The new Probation Qualification Framework
(PQF) training arrangements for practitioner staff (PO and PSO
staff) have only just been introduced this year, after several
years of work on the revised arrangements.
8.2 The PQF ensures that PSO staff undertake
a specified level of training immediately following their appointment
and achieve an accredited qualification, which is a very positive
development. We also now have the facility to train existing staff
through to qualified PO status, or to recruit direct entrants,
and this provides Probation Trusts with much more flexibility
in terms of staff development and workforce planning. The curriculum
for each of the levels of training appears to be comprehensive
and relevant, and will ensure skilled, qualified staff are available
at both PSO and PO grades. We believe the current arrangements
are more than adequate and very much welcome their introduction.
8.3 Within DTV Probation Trust, staff at all
levels receive ongoing training and development, targeted at their
specific needs and role. This is assessed and delivered at local
Trust level with minimum resources and maximum effectiveness.
These arrangements work well.
8.4 Overall, we believe it is essential that
Probation staff are well trained and appropriately qualified.
The current arrangements are perfectly adquate to deliver this
objective.
September 2010
Annex 2
BARRIERS TO REDUCING RE-OFFENDING AND REDUCING
COSTS IN THE NATIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE
CONTEXT
Probation Trusts, so far, differ little materially
from Probation Boards.
— Trusts
are not yet being subject to less regulation and proper autonomy
to operate at arms length from Government as Non-Departmental
Public Bodies (ie being less risk averse and better at managing
risk).
— Trusts
have no freedom to control their own finances by, for example,
being granted year-end flexibility.
— Trusts
have no freedom to control the regime within which offenders are
managed.
— Trusts
have no different degree of scope to be more innovative and outwardly
focused (eg entering into joint ventures and starting social enterprises
when these offer best solutions).
— Trusts
are demonstrating the capability to work more efficiently.
— They
have "delayered" and achieved greater efficiencies.
— Processes
driving these efficiencies (ie the Specification Benchmarking
and Costing Programme) take little note of the effectiveness of
services delivered.
— Trusts
are demonstrating the capability to deliver effective services.
This is demonstrated by our contribution to year on year reductions
in crime and re-offending. More can be done to increase effectiveness.
1. POSITIVE FEATURES
OF PROBATION
TRUSTS WITH
POTENTIAL TO
REDUCE RE
-OFFENDING AND
REDUCE COSTS
1.1 The Durham Tees Valley (DTV) Strategy is:
— outcome
driven (aimed at reducing re-offending);
— research
evidence based (based on evidence from international literature
and own evaluations of what reduces re-offending);
— cost
beneficial (matches resources to the level of risk of the offence);
and
— working
to change the culture of the organisation to focus on reducing
re-offending.
1.2 The DTV Trust is committed to evidence-based
practice, and therefore wishes only to employ methods that can
be shown to work in reducing re-offending. (Contextual issues
set above mitigate aspects of this).
1.3 The DTV Trust has a structured supervision
programme, "Citizenship", which has through independent
evaluation been shown statistically to be effective in reducing
re-offending (evaluation peer reviewed by a top international
journal).
1.4 International research evidence shows that
high intensity supervision should be concentrated on the highest
risk offenders with less supervision for low risk offenders. Trusts
have some scope to differentiate (via Tiering) but more is required.
1.5 Based on research evidence the DTV Trust
could, if permitted further, reduce the input to low risk offenders,
in partnership with our community partners, without increasing
the risk of re-offending.
1.6 The DTV Trust works jointly with other agencies
(ie the Police and local authority partners) who share the main
target of reducing re-offending. Partnerships have been formed
with other voluntary sector agencies with the aim of mainstreaming
offenders back into non-criminal justice community support.
2. BARRIERS TO
REDUCING RE
-OFFENDING AND
REDUCING COSTS
Sentencing
2.1 Research evidence has contributed to a reduction
in re-offending through evidence-based offending behaviour programmes,
and more recently through greater adoption of evidence-based offender
management and offender supervision. The DTV Trust is striving
to work as an evidence-based organisation. However this is inhibited
by working within a criminal justice system where sentencing processes
are not evidence-based.
2.1.1 At a macro level, the Probation Service
is in the unenviable position of being unable to select the work
it takes on to match the resources available to run the Service.
The SBC Programme is designed to mitigate some of the capacity
issues. It does not address the issue of selection. As sentencing
is not evidence-based, it is difficult to anticipate the level
of risk of the offenders who will be placed under community supervision,
and the number of offenders to be managed. Although locally we
are re-focusing our work to concentrate more resources on high
risk offenders and devoting less resource to low risk offenders.
It would be advantageous if this approach was adopted across the
National Offender Management Service so that prison resources
could be concentrated on the offenders at highest risk of re-offending
and harm, with the Probation Service managing those offenders
that have reduced their levels of risk or who have demonstrated
the potential to do so.
2.1.2 The Probation Service manages a range of
offenders from low to very high risk. Partly due to policy in
respect of purposes of sentencing and in some instances subjective
decisions about the level of risk of those released from prison.
Some offenders at very high risk of serious harm are being supervised
in the community; conversely many offenders with less serious
crimes are in prison on short sentences. This system of sentencing
and early release is not always transparent to the Probation Service,
let alone the public, and should be rationalised.
2.1.3 As has been recognised, there is a need
for a criminal justice system in which the public has confidence,
with a focus on the protection of the public and a more open and
accurate means of assessing risk of re-offending and risk of harm.
The Secretary of State has said that sentencing processes will
become more transparent to the public by introducing a minimum
and maximum sentence, within which release will be earned while
in prison. We do not think that this will be sufficient to change
the public's perception of the transparency of the sentencing
process, and suggest a more radical approach of evidence-based
sentencing would be more appropriate.
2.1.4 Although it is accepted in the Health Service
that there is a finite amount of money to be spent on health,
this argument is not generally accepted when it comes to sentencing.
The case is currently made that sentencing should not be linked
to resources and the justice system should be allowed to impose
the "appropriate" sentence without being constrained
by availability of resources. This ignores the fact if demand
exceeds availability, a reduction in the interventions and level
(including quality) of supervision that can be provided follows.
It would be more satisfactory if this allocation process was managed
effectively at the sentencing level rather than being left to
chance, and that Probation Services were consulted on the risk
levels and quantity of cases that were in their scope to manage
effectively, while reducing re-offending.
2.1.5 There is evidence that diversion schemes
can reduce the numbers entering the criminal justice system. There
is a need for provision of more pre-court diversion schemes for
first time offenders and for those whose offending is more related
to mental health problems than to criminality.
Need for Flexibility to Manage Offenders according
to evidence-based practice
2.2 The key role of the Probation Service is
to reduce re-offending by offenders subject to supervision or
post-release licence by working, directly and in partnership with
other providers, on the issues which drive offending behaviour.
2.2.1 It is not clear if the main purpose of
Offender Management is to "administer" an offender through
the different requirements of his/her sentence (ie, is a background
to other programming) or to be instrumental in addressing offending
behaviour (ie, is about effectiveness and is focused on outcomes).
We propose that this should be outcome driven (ie, reducing re-offending)
and evidence-based (ie, based on research evidence of what is
effective in reducing re-offending).
2.2.2 This should involve delivering Offender
Management and offender supervision, for which the local Probation
Service is the lead provider working with partners within, for
example, local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership.
2.2.3 There is an urgent need for Offender Management
to be more directly concerned with addressing offending behaviour
with the aim of achieving improved outcomes (rates of re-offending).
2.2.4 If the improved outcomes delivered by the
adoption of "evidence-based" supervision of offenders
is to be realised, this approach needs to be taken "to scale".
To achieve this, supervision of offenders should be:
— Structured.
— Cognitive-behavioural.
— Delivered
with integrity.
2.2.5 To achieve this, greater flexibility within
a less regulated Performance and Management frame-work is required.
Performance and Management Framework Requirements
2.3 A range of targets and procedures mitigate
against the key role of the Probation Service set out above: The
current performance management framework arrangements have grown
into cumbersome, complex arrangements with limited relevance to
the achievement of outcomes. Some examples follow:
Offender Managers work in a context of:
— 4 Tiers
of offenders
— 3 MAPPA
levels
— different
"layers" of OASYs assessment
— 2 types
of court reports (fast and standard delivery)
2.3.1 There is a requirement to update OASys
throughout the Order, even for Tier 1 and Tier 2 offenders (low
risk).
2.3.2 There is a requirement to commence within
6 weeks pre-programme work on an offender with a programme requirement,
even when the offender is not programme-ready. This interrupts
other work and means the pre-programme work has to be done twice.
2.3.3 A requirement is in place to see offenders
at a regularity that is unrelated to the work that needs to be
done and does not relate to officer judgement or discretion.
2.3.4 Sentencing which means that some offenders
receive programme requirements when they are often too low risk
and therefore receive service delivery inconsistent with their
Tier level (eg some Domestic Violence perpetrators who wouldn't
otherwise be Tier 4 - high risk).
2.3.5 A list of Performance Targets is attached
which shows the targets which we suggest should be removed, to
be replaced with one performance target (reducing re-offending)
for the DTV Trust and the individual Offender Manager, for which
both are accountable.
3. SOLUTIONS
3.1 Performance Targets should be replaced by
one target outcome based performance measure, to "reduce
re-offending"; each Offender Manager should have professional
responsibility for meeting that target, incorporating all statutory
and ethical requirements of offender management.
3.2 Quality of supervision should be emphasised
rather than quantity.
3.3 At the change-over to the main target, "Citizenship"
should be re-launched and Offender Managers given training in
the key components of effective evidence-based practice: assessment
of risk, need, and responsivity (ie intervention style to coincide
with the capabilities of the offender).
3.4 Changes in practice should be evaluated to
ensure that the changes are matching or improving on the individual
target of reducing re-offending.
The DTV Trust would be willing to pilot and evaluate
any scheme to reduce barriers as requested by the Justice Select
Committee.
| 
