Written evidence from the London Probation
Trust (PB 43)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 We believe that probation trusts are well
placed to deliver the Government's rehabilitation agenda, to protect
the public and to reduce crime as commissioners and as providers.
We can best do this in conjunction with other statutory agencies,
and with voluntary and private sector organisations.
1.2 Probation trusts need to move away from numerical
targets to outcome measures shared by all the agencies delivering
services to offenders.
1.3 The Community Order with 12 requirements
is overly complex. A return to a generic order would allow interventions
to be effectively targeted post sentence and reduce the need to
return to court when circumstances change, which is expensive
for both probation and the courts.
1.4 Probation Trusts alone do not have the capacity
to deal with an increased workload. The way forward should be
through local commissioning to provide for specific local needs
and the shared ownership of local offenders. A redistribution
of resources away from prisons to the community might be prudent.
1.5 Probation trusts could make more use of restorative
justice. There may be some scope to extend Community Payback,
which is one element of restorative justice already embedded in
probation.
1.6 The probation service has an excellent track
record of dealing appropriately with a wide range of different
groups of offenders. Greater opportunities for locally commissioned
services would build flexibility into the probation's response
to the needs of diverse groups.
2. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
2.1 No. Currently probation services are commissioned
by the National Offender Management Service. In turn, probation
trusts provide adult offender services in the community themselves
or commission voluntary or private sector organisations to deliver
services to offenders on their behalf. There are potential efficiency
and cost savings to be made by reviewing these arrangements to
allow probation trusts more flexibility to commission directly,
thereby also meeting the needs of local communities more effectively.
2.2 Probation trusts should also be empowered
to establish joint commissioning arrangements with local authorities
and other external agencies. This should:
— minimise
the duplication of services offered to offenders by the various
agencies;
— provide
greater consistency and continuity of the services offered to
offenders (pre, during and post supervision); and
— encourage
a greater sense of collective responsibility for improving the
services provided to vulnerable adults and to local communities.
2.3 As statutory organisations, probation trusts
will always be bound by legislation to provide a number of services
that will need to be measured against pre-defined inputs and outputs.
However, there are a number of areas where outcome based commissioning
could be done jointly by probation trusts and local authorities
(and where appropriate health) with each agency sharing the responsibility
for making sure that those outcomes are achieved.
2.4 Currently probation trusts have limited ability
to undertake long term financial planning. Annual budgets are
reactive and often the weighting is influenced by political imperatives.
There is also little incentive for probation trusts to look for
long term financial savings or income generation, as savings and
earnings are generally not retained by the service but instead
subsumed centrally.
2.5 London Probation Trust (LPT) has experience
both as a commissioner of services and as a provider. This experience,
together with the professional expertise within the organisation,
means LPT is well placed to take on the responsibility of commissioning
services for adult offenders in London based on a best value model
and using in-house provision, the voluntary and community sector
or private sector as appropriate. We are well placed to deliver
the Government's rehabilitation agenda, to protect the public
and to reduce crime as both a commissioner and a provider.
2.6 LPT has local strategic links and works closely
with local partners including the police, local authorities and,
to a lesser extent, health services through Community Safety Partnerships.
We are a responsible authority and help to develop and implement
borough based community safety plans to help reduce crime. In
future, regardless of the commissioning model adopted, probation
trusts will need to strengthen these links as local authorities
commission services for offenders who are their local citizens.
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 Probation trusts are operating effectively
given the legislation and constraints surrounding their performance
management framework. The probation service supervises all offenders
sentenced to over 12 months in custody and those made subject
to Community Orders. The introduction of trusts has enabled probation
areas to focus on a new delivery model built around Local Delivery
Units. While it is too early to assess the full effect of the
move to trust status, it has been a positive move and has reinforced
the need for probation to focus on meeting the needs of offenders
and the community in collaboration with partnership agencies.
In such a collaborative model, the offender manager acts as the
"broker", or principal agent, responsible for managing
risk and overseeing the delivery of a tailored package of supervision
and intervention as determined by the court.
3.2 Currently probation trusts are assessed for
effectiveness according to their ability to meet a number of output-orientated
targets. A great deal of time and energy is spent on counting
and recording performance that would be better spent on engaging
with offenders. Probation trusts should be assessed against fewer
outcome orientated targets which are shared by those agencies
delivering services to offenders, with probation trusts ultimately
responsible for the performance of any services they commission.
Probation services should continue to focus on delivering offender
management of cases where there is a medium, high and very high
risk of harm to the public and should be empowered to commission
the voluntary and private sector to deliver interventions and
offender management for those offenders where the risk of harm
to the public is lower.
3.3 In the future, trusts should be looking to
maximise their capacity to income generate either on their own
or in partnership with a view to making most efficient use of
resources available within their area.
4. Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
4.1 The separation in commissioning arrangements
between probation trusts and courts/sentencers means that there
is an inherent tension between what is demanded of probation services
and what can be delivered.
4.2 LPT works across 32 London boroughs, the
Corporation of London and numerous health trusts. We are able
to take a regional view of services available for offenders with
mental health, alcohol and other health needs. What we see is
uneven provision across London which does not meet all the criminogenic
needs of all offenders.
4.3 In order to even up provision, LPT commissions
services for alcohol users, some limited services for those offenders
with mental health problems and, largely through European Social
Fund Money, innovative education, training and employment opportunities
for offenders who are "hard to reach".
4.4 LPT has been involved in a Mental Health
Court Pilot in Stratford Magistrates' Court. The project has brought
together probation staff, the judiciary and local mental health
services to establish better outcomes for offenders with mental
health problems. Early indications suggest that the project has
been successful. Following the expiry of the initial funding from
Her Majesty's Court Service, LPT has worked alongside a voluntary
sector organisation, Together Working for Wellbeing, and secured
further funding for the next three years.
4.5 The Community Order with 12 requirements
is overly complex and bureaucratic. A return to a generic order
would allow intervention to address offending related need to
be effectively targeted post sentence and reduce the need to return
to court when circumstances change, which is expensive for both
probation and courts.
4.6 Sentencers' confidence in Community Orders
could be reinforced by reducing the resource put in to telling
them what probation will do, and moving towards a more outcome
based approach where they get better information on what we have
done.
4.7 This would also support a move away from
costly court enforcement processes towards a system where court
enforcement resources and further sentencing is only used for
those cases where all else has failed. Evidence from research
on desistance from offending suggests that the creation of a non
offending identity is important—so, apart from being expensive,
an early return to court at the point of difficulty may have the
counter-intuitive effect of making compliance less likely.
5. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
5.1 The private and voluntary sector can play
an important part in delivering probation services and partnerships
between key organisations and probation trusts could support an
enhanced rehabilitative service. Probation trusts should be empowered
to manage and build upon these relationships, ideally as a commissioner
of their services in accordance with the identified needs of the
local community.
5.2 By engaging private and voluntary agencies
in the delivery of interventions, probation trusts would be able
to focus more of their energies and resources on the supervision
of offenders and on the effective management of their risk.
5.3 Local commissioning would best support the
effective use of the voluntary and private sector and enable tailored
packages of interventions to be delivered according to the identified
needs of local communities. This opportunity for probation trusts
to work with local providers would build the connection between
trusts and the communities they serve. Probation trusts would
be responsible for overseeing the quality of the interventions
delivered by agencies.
5.4 London Probation Trust already commissions
services from many voluntary and some private sector organisations
who deliver interventions to offenders. These relationships have
been developed to cover gaps in provision or to extend or complement
one-to-one delivery. Full expansion of these could allow probation
trusts to provide an enhanced service and expand the numbers of
lower risk offenders who can be offered a local appropriate service
to reduce reoffending and interrupt a pattern of repeat short
periods of imprisonment. It would also improve offender access
to services for assistance with issues such as housing, literacy
and numeracy, employment and training, substance misuse and mental
health for vulnerable adults.
6. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short term custodial sentences?
6.1 Probation trusts alone do not have the capacity
to deal with an increased workload likely to emanate from a move
away from short term custodial sentences without either readdressing
provision or expansion with partner agencies. The way forward
should be through local commissioning to provide for specific
local needs and the ownership of local offenders. A redistribution
of resources away from prisons to the community might be prudent.
6.2 A joint approach by the agencies engaged
in addressing the needs of offenders susceptible to short term
prison sentences would undoubtedly give probation trusts more
capacity to deal with a reduction in short term custodial sentences.
A multi-agency network in place to provide prevention (police)
and various community based interventions (private and voluntary
sector organisations, Drug Intervention Programme, etc), working
together with probation services might increase the quality of
the high level of supervision required by those offenders most
susceptible to reoffending and most likely to receive short term
sentences.
6.3 For instance, literacy remains a barrier
to employment and rehabilitation. Interventions that address this
would be effective, but currently literacy and numeracy support
is not funded for offenders. Better targeting of some of the resource
of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills, particularly where commissioned
services are not available, could bridge this gap.
6.4 In some cases, a short period of custody
will be the only appropriate sentence for an offender (for instance,
where all other possible community options have been exhausted).
However, with an appropriate redistribution of resources and increased
engagement with voluntary and private sector organisations, probation
trusts would be better able to provide packages to the courts
which could divert offenders away from custody.
7. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
7.1 Probation trusts could make more use of restorative
justice but would need to target the appropriate model of restorative
justice to the type of offence, offender and victim. There is
evidence available to indicate that restorative justice can work
both as a means of reducing reoffending and in providing a service
to victims.
7.2 It is important to note that restorative
justice is not a cheap response to crime, as practitioners involved
need to be highly trained to undertake the potentially difficult
work. However, it does provide probation trusts with the opportunity
to undertake further partnership work with the private and voluntary
sectors. For example, London Probation Trust hopes to work with
Victim Support in one of their forthcoming restorative justice
initiatives.
7.3 Probation trusts looking for the most cost
effective use of resource may look to recommending a diversionary
restorative justice sentence for those offenders assessed as appropriate
and willing to participate in reparative work or victim contact.
7.4 Community Payback, which is both respected
by the courts and valued by communities who benefit from the work,
is the most obvious form of restorative justice already embedded
in probation. Probation trusts might consider developing this
requirement further to increase the involvement of specific victims
of crime as well as the community as a whole. While it would make
sense for this to be balanced against a wider placement strategy
that supports outcomes of increased employability, general public
confidence and reduced delivery cost, the opportunity to nominate
a project or influence the type of work done could offer victims
a tangible opportunity to have their voices heard.
7.5 Conflict resolution may also have a key role
tackling serious group offending and youth crime, by providing
a means for addressing issues for both victim and perpetrator
(important as often the victim/perpetrator roles are interchangeable).
This could help offenders to address the root of their offending
behaviours, reintegrate with their community and so assist in
the development of exit routes from gang affiliations that are
likely to lead to further reoffending.
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?
8.1 Probation trusts must aim to target resources
and energies to best meet the diverse needs of offenders in order
to support their rehabilitation. However, this will need to be
balanced against the need to consider both economies of scale
and whether the cost of a bespoke service is justified, in terms
of its effectiveness, compared to generic service delivery.
8.2 Voluntary and private sector organisations
within local communities who are working to support diverse groups
often have a better understanding of the needs of the community
and of service users. Greater opportunities for locally commissioned
services, with probation trusts tasked to contribute to any national
strategies for managing different offender groups through a centrally
determined policy on outcomes, would build flexibility in to the
probation service response to the needs of diverse groups.
8.3 LPT has been proactive in working in partnership
with various private and voluntary sector organisations to develop
tailored provision for various specific offender groups such as
women, and black and minority offenders. However, in some instances
LPT is constrained by a lack of direct control in the commissioning
of these organisations, which makes it harder to meet the specific
needs of the differing offender groups.
8.4 Currently the majority of services for women
offenders are commissioned directly by the Ministry of Justice
and probation trusts have no input into the relevant service level
agreements and so no influence on the services being provided.
8.5 Greater control over the commissioning of
services would also free up probation trusts to work directly
with organisations within communities to help remove any barriers
groups of offenders may face (language being the most obvious)
in trying to access support services or programmes aimed at addressing
their offending behaviours.
8.6 LPT has made substantial progress in its
work managing young adult offenders and has developed strong links
with the London Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams
(YOTs) at a local borough level. Young offenders are a priority
given the prevalence of serious group offending in London within
this age group. However, the prescribed cut-off point between
youth and adult services at 18 makes it harder to maintain the
continuity of case management of young offenders, despite clearly
defined procedures for case transfer between London YOTs and LPT.
8.7 A move by both probation and prison services,
as well as other community services, to basing the management
of offenders between the age of 16 and 21 on emotional maturity
might greatly improve the continuity and consistency of the support
they receive before, during and after their sentence. With this
support network in place, more extensive multi-agency supervision
of young offenders focusing on social reintegration would be possible.
London Probation Trust recognises that there are often fewer community
services and resources for offenders aged 18 and above than there
are for offenders aged 17 and under, which may impact on reoffending
outcomes for young adults.
9. Is the provision of training adequate?
9.1 The new Probation Qualification Framework
(PQF) has only just been introduced with a first intake in LPT
starting in June 2010. Early indications are that it will facilitate
a smother pathway to a workforce of qualified offender managers,
equipped at both Probation Service Officer and Probation Officer
level to manage the range of offender risk need and complexity
as appropriate.
9.2 Under the PQF, degrees deemed relevant to
access a quicker route to qualified Probation Officer status are
those made up of at least 50% criminal justice, community justice
or policing. This rightly reflects the role of probation as a
central criminal justice agency. However, other core elements
of what being a probation officer entails in practice, such as
dealing with families and managing offender integration will benefit
from embracing learning from other disciplines. The probation
service would therefore benefit from opening up the post graduate
diploma to graduates from a wider range of relevant disciplines.
9.3 Much benefit could also be gained by having
certain modules in a range of professional degrees taught and
completed on a multi disciplinary basis (eg forensic psychology,
nursing, social work or policing). With the increased use of distance
learning, this becomes an increasingly practical option.
9.4 Probation trusts also need to find the resource
to provide staff with opportunities for continuous professional
development to ensure the provision of the highest quality supervision
and risk management of offenders. Training needs to be ongoing
to ensure that all offender managers are able to adapt to the
changing priorities of government and the communities they serve.
9.5 Management training is especially important
as managers are being asked to take on more work in response to
reducing budgets, but LPT has had to reduce the numbers of managers
undertaking management qualifications in response to financial
constraints. Given its importance, probation trusts will need
to consider carefully how reductions to training budgets might
be managed and how to deliver staff development opportunities
in new cost effective ways, such as the increased use of e-learning.
September 2010
| 
