Written evidence from the Cambridge and
Peterborough Probation Trust (PB 41)
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Probation Trust
(CPPT) considers that the most effective commissioning arrangements
are managed as close as possible to the point of delivery and
will involve a range of organisations working together, within
contractual arrangements to achieve a common outcome. In the case
of the Probation Service this is the reduction of offending from
offenders thereby reducing the number of victims of crime and
protecting the public.
The most effective commissioning arrangements will
include the following facets:
— Identifying
the need that is to be met. This would be the criminogenic needs
of offenders,
— Consulting
local stakeholders to ensure that the criminogenic needs are correctly
identified and to explore the opportunities for delivery, and
— Realistic
specification of services to be provided and effective performance
management arrangements.
The current commissioning arrangements for the Probation
Service are not as effective as intended, mainly because a regional
commissioning basis is too remote from the communities in which
the services are to be delivered. Probation Trusts have the infra-structure
and local partnership arrangements to be able to engage effectively
with local partners.
2. 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?
(a) How effectively are probation trusts
operating in practice?
CPPT, as it became a Trust on 1
April 2010 differed little in practice from its previous existence
as a Probation Board. This is largely because of the absence of
most of the promised "freedoms" for Probation Trusts
that were identified during the Trust transition programme. It
is disappointing that the previous administration would not allow
Trusts the freedoms that would allow them to achieve their full
potential. The governance arrangements for Probation Trusts give
the potential for greater autonomy and flexibility. This is very
important if a Trust is truly to be able to meet local needs.
The lack of year end financial flexibility is a good example of
the potential of Probation Trusts not being met because of unnecessary
constraints that have been put in place by the previous government.
The ability to carry resources forward from one year to another
would mean a much better use of public funds which would more
effectively meet local needs.
(b) What is the role of the probation service
in delivering "offender management" and how
does it operate in practice?
There is currently a lack of clarity
about what the term "Offender Management" means, and
CPPT believes that offender management should mean the effective
engagement of Probation staff with offenders to impact positively
on their offending behaviour, achieving a reduction in offending
behaviour.
Within NOMS it seems that currently offender management
is seen as primarily an administrative process, within which the
offender manager is responsible for overseeing and sequencing
interventions with the offender. This, in our opinion, ignores
the capability and potential of offender managers to engage positively
with the offender to reduce their offending behaviour. The professional
base, training, skills, knowledge and experience of Probation
staff put them in the best position to supervise offenders effectively.
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?
(a) Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides
for a range of additional requirements to be included in community
orders, not all of which are managed by the Probation Trusts.
Most of these can be utilised fully by sentencers but not all
of the requirements are available. In CPPT there is not a Senior
Attendance centre, something which would be welcomed by sentencers
in the county. There is also very little provision for mentally
disordered offenders and an insufficient provision of alcohol
services for offenders. The provision of services in Probation
Trusts is currently primarily driven by a target driven environment
rather than one which is based primarily upon local need. This
refers to the point made earlier in the submission about regional
commissioning being less effective than locally based commissioning
in meeting local need. Magistrates and Judges are affected in
their ability to match sentences to need by a lack of consistent
provision.
(b) How effectively are these requirements
being delivered?
CPPT is increasingly able to provide
sentencers with a wide range of Specified Activity Requirements
to address the needs of specific offender groups such as women
offenders and specific issues such as lower level alcohol misuse,
debt and money management, compliance, and parenting skills.
When offenders fail to comply with their Community
Orders, CPPT has a rigorous process for enforcing orders and licences.
In 2009-10 CPPT had an enforcement performance of 97%. CPPT staff
also work to achieve a greater compliance among offenders. This
includes 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.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
CPPT considers that offender supervision and the
primary responsibility for commissioning offender services should
be with Probation Trusts for reasons that have previously been
explained.
Private and voluntary sectors should have a significant
role in the delivery of interventions to offenders. There is considerable
expertise in both sectors which when combined with a Probation
Trust's ability to supervise offenders effectively and to commission
services locally, would create a very powerful delivery base,
one which would have a good chance of success and one that meets
the coalition government's policy drive for "Open Society."
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
At the present time CPPT does not have the capacity
to supervise an additional large number of offenders who might
be sentenced to a Community Order rather than a short term of
imprisonment. There would need to be a re-direction of resources
from the Prison Service to Probation Trusts to allow for an increase
in staffing levels to supervise a significantly increased number
of offenders.
It is important to state that while CPPT does not
currently have the capacity; it most certainly has the capability
to supervise an increased number of offenders. The professional
base of our staff, the training, skills, knowledge and experience
mean that staff are well able to increase their capacity. However,
for this to happen there needs to be some de-regulation of restrictive
and overly bureaucratic requirements on Probation Trust. There
is an unnecessarily high level of central and regional reporting
that takes up a significant amount of Probation Trust resources.
A recent research project has shown that offender managers spend
up to 70% of their time inputting data to computers. If this was
reduced by half it would allow a significant increase in the time
that Probation staff could spend in direct face to face contact
with offenders.
6. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
CPPT would wish to extend the use of Restorative
Justice, using the models of practice that are in existence in
the Youth Offending Service. Restorative Justice is very effective
in positively affecting the behaviour and attitudes of offenders.
Community payback already has a clear restorative
element (visible payback to the community) which is highly valued
by local communities. The restorative elements within community
payback could be extended and strengthened.
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?
CPPT works with partners to deliver effective services
to different offender groups. It is vital that the Trust engages
well with partners and community groups to ensure that the needs
of all offenders are met. This is particularly important for the
"hard to reach" group of offenders, particularly BEM
offenders. In CPPT there are effective arrangements in place for
the Trust to engage with partners and community groups. It can
never be said that an optimum performance in this regard has been
achieved. CPPT is always responsive to the changing needs of local
communities, and these can change considerably over short periods
of time. For example, the migration of East European workers to
Cambridgeshire has provided the Trust with delivery challenges
which can only be properly met when working in effective local
partnership.
8. Is the Provision of Training Adequate?
CPPT has, like all other Probation Trusts, introduced
the new Probation Qualifying Framework (PQF) in April 2010. It
provides a vocational qualification at Level 3 for Probation Service
Officers (PSOs) leading to an identified route into a Level 5
qualification for Probation Officers should they choose to undertake
it. There is also a direct graduate entry pathway which is as
yet untested because reductions in recruitment mean that the new
qualification will be slow to start. CPPT has recruited new staff
directly onto the new graduate training scheme because of the
need in the Trust for qualified Probation Officers in the future.
However this is not common across all Probation Trusts.
CPPT does not consider that there is sufficient training
in place for middle and senior managers. There has in the recent
past not been a significant focus in NOMS in the provision of
management development training. The significance of this gap
is in the development of future leaders in the Probation Service.
Without such a focus there has to be a risk to the longer term
succession planning capability of Probation Trusts.
September 2010
| 
