Written evidence from the Chair and Chief
Executive Officer, Avon and Somerset Probation Trust (PB 45)
1. SUBMITTED
BY AVON
AND SOMERSET
PROBATION TRUST
(ASPT) BOARD CHAIR
AND CEO
1.1 The Trust Board members collectively bring
a wealth of qualification and experience from public, private
and voluntary sector. Board membership is geographically representative
of the urban and rural local communities the trust serves.
1.2 Both the Board Chair and Chief Executive
Officer have substantial operational and leadership experience
within the probation service. The CEO has notable experience in
innovative multi agency approaches to crime and was most recently
instrumental in the trust's development, with partners, of a leading
Integrated Offender Management project in Bristol that was adopted
as a national pilot scheme. Following her appointment in 2008
Avon and Somerset saw the fastest performance improvement of any
Probation area in England and Wales at that time. Those high levels
of performance have been sustained under the leadership of the
current Board.
1.3 The Chair has current experience on the board
of a major third sector housing and care provider. He has worked
as an advisor to the Home Office and MoJ on the introduction of
commissioning and contestability to the probation service and
extending it in the prison service. He was a lead author of Improving
Probation and Prison Services—Public Value Partnerships,
Home Office, 2006. He was a member of the senior management team
(the Commissioning and Contestability Team) and as an advisor
within MoJ to the Bill Team which led to the introduction of the
Offender Management Act, 2007, which enables a competitive environment
for the Secretary of State to contract for probation work. The
Chair also worked on strategies to increase the role of the third
sector in probation service delivery and improve services for
women offenders
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 It is the opinion of this Board that probation
services are not commissioned in the most appropriate way. Currently
probation trusts are contracted with and those contracts are based
predominantly on historic and centralised process targets disaggregated
from national targets and requirements. The current structure
does not have the alignment to adequately reflect local needs
and priorities. The role of sentencers in the commissioning process
has been largely overlooked despite their crucial role in representing
their local communities and establishing demand.
2.2 In general, as evidenced by the rigorous
assessment and qualification process of trust application, the
35 probation trusts are effective in delivering offender management
and can demonstrate significant business capability.
2.3 Sentencers can and do access the interventions
ASPT delivers. However, in the current commissioning arrangement
demand for interventions can be unaligned to supply. The wider
role of sentencers as commissioners of probation work requires
proper incorporation in the commissioning model.
2.4 The private and voluntary sectors have potential
to play a greater role in the delivery of probation services,
especially in the delivery of support services and interventions.
Offender management should be delivered by appropriately qualified
and managed staff employed by the probation trust.
2.5 In the opinion of this trust, Integrated
Offender Management is the preferred model of offender management.
IOM presents important opportunities for a new way of working
that delivers greater capacity within existing resources.
2.6 Trusts and other providers can and should
make more use of restorative justice, not just as a sentence but
as a diversion from prosecution in appropriate cases. Probation
trust experience of work with victims of crime is a valuable resource
in this development. Restorative Justice has an important part
to play in the IOM model of delivery.
2.7 The Probation Qualification Training Framework
is broadly welcomed by ASPT, and especially the attention paid
to the development of "probation service officers" (a
group of staff who do not possess a probation officer qualification)
who are thereby enabled to take on a greater range of functions
that deliver best value for money.
2.8 NOMS commissioning arrangements do not deliver
probation services that have sufficient local coherence. The current
arrangements fail sufficiently to recognise important features
of Probation trust governance and are inappropriately prison service
oriented. Trusts are unnecessarily curtailed in business freedoms
that are essential to thrive in the commercial environment that
we welcome.
2.9 Probation trusts are both well placed and
appropriately skilled to commission probation services that are
relevant to local communities, better aligned with sentencer demand
and developed in alliance with other local community providers.
The trust recognises key strategic relationships with police,
local authority and sentencers as of greater priority in achieving
outcomes than the current primary strategic alignment with the
prison service.
3. CONTEXT INFORMATION
3.1 Avon and Somerset Probation Trust is not
protectionist of the public sector. Our trust is intent on commissioning
and delivering high quality and effective services to our communities,
in partnership with others, to protect the public and reduce offending
and the damage caused to victims and families through such behaviour.
We are a high performing and innovative trust with a balance of
senior managers drawn from professional backgrounds in probation
and other sectors. The majority of our Assistant Chief Officers
do not have a background as Probation Officers.
3.2 The trust is entirely open-minded to change
and development. Central to our approach to offender management
is the development and implementation of the Integrated Offender
Management model delivered jointly with the police and other local
partners. IOM schemes nationally vary considerably and any reference
we make is to the model operating in Bristol.
3.3 The trust has substantial proven capacity
for innovation in utilising diverse delivery models for services
to offenders and communities. Such an example is the creation,
by this trust, of a Social Enterprise, the Restore Trust, that
delivers important education and training opportunities by restoring
local properties. Restore Trust has been successful in attracting
resources to support the rehabilitation of offenders and is delivering
excellent results.
3.4 Our work with offenders is based upon a thorough
recognition of the centrality of victims and communities in our
work. The statutory service probation trust staff deliver to victims
of serious crime is frequently overlooked and this omission gives
a distorted perception of the organisation's core values, beliefs
and skills.
3.5 The promised advantages of trust status have
not materialised. This is especially true in relation to business
freedoms needed to operate effectively in the commercial environment
that this trust welcomes. For example trusts are not permitted
financial year end flexibility and this both militates against
good business planning and creates disincentive for other organisations
to invest in probation delivery.
3.6 Contrary to current perceptions the National
Offender Management Service (NOMS) as created in 2004, was based
on new commissioning principles. NOMS was re-launched in 2008
with an overwhelmingly prison service senior management. The following
two extracts come from the NOMS website as of 7 September 2010,
"Effective commissioning will ensure that the
most appropriate services are available to meet offender needs,
at the right price and at the right time. The NOMS commissioning
system is continually developing. Between now and 2010 we expect
to deliver a significant step change in the way we commission
services from the public, private and third sectors."
"The probation Trusts will act not only as providers
of court services and offender management, but also as local commissioners.
They will be responsible for commissioning interventions and other
services from the best providers in the public, private or third
sector, in accordance with the need for efficiency and effectiveness
and in line with value for money principles. They will also represent
NOMS and in work with local communities to reduce re-offending."
3.7 There is only limited evidence that NOMS
engages with local offender and community needs in the development
of its commissioning system, and as indicated already NOMS has,
at best, a contracting top-down approach. Further, whilst the
approach of Probation Trust as commissioner is sound there is
little evidence that NOMS has developed the intent beyond making
the statement. It is an approach that we as a trust welcome, but
it does require the business flexibilities, currently denied to
trusts, to implement effectively.
3.8 Overall, the creation of NOMS has done little
for probation delivery or development and certainly it is hard
to justify the expenditure on NOMS in relation to benefits realised.
Out trust has utmost respect for, and excellent relationship with
the regional South West DOM team but we do not believe the structure
for commissioning achieves best performance, quality and value
for local communities.
3.9 Offender management, through one responsible
person managing offenders through their complete sentence is without
doubt the right principle. However effective join up between prison
and probation delivery has not been achieved to the extent that
might have been reasonably expected over a nearly seven year time
frame. Indeterminate public protection sentence progression is
an outstanding and costly example of this failure. It is the opinion
of this trust that the prison service is not the organisation
with which probation trust primary strategic partnership should
exist.
3.10 The delivery of probation services is rooted
in ensuring the offender's capacity to thrive as a responsible
citizen in their local community. The primary strategic partners
of the probation trust are the police, local authorities and other
community organisations providing services to offenders. Whilst
prisoner sentence plans require close liaison with colleagues
in the prison service it is proper that the prison service priority
is with the management and delivery of safe and secure custody
and not community provision and supervision.
3.11 Our trust would strongly argue that the
strategic alignment of the commissioning and delivery of probation
services is with other community based provision with the police
and local authorities as key partners. We are keen to engage with
the proposals around a local criminal justice/crime commissioner
with a clearer focus on community provision. If there is to be
a major reconfiguration we would argue that it is time to separate
probation delivery from the prison service and align it instead
more closely with the police.
4. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
4.1 Probation services are not commissioned in
the most appropriate way. At best probation trusts are contracted
with. Contracts are based predominantly on historic and centralised
process targets disaggregated from national targets and requirements.
This approach itself is a manifestation of an historic resource
allocation model from the centre to probation areas based on a
complex formula addressing both workloads and demographics, which
over time did little to address existing resource imbalances between
probation areas that had built up over time before the resource
allocation model was implemented.
4.2 Commissioning, in the sense that commissioning
is a process through which local needs are assessed and met within
nationally defined priorities, does not happen. It is also not
clear how decisions are taken about services to be commissioned
nationally and more locally and what the roles are of DOM teams
and trusts in managing demand.
4.3 The current contracting approach is essentially
one derived from the prison service experience with a focus on
centralised managerial command and control with little regard
for the different governance arrangements in place and operating
environment for probation trusts. This has led to unreasonable
centralised monitoring and contract compliance demands on executive
time disproportionate to the value that such activities generate.
4.4 It is the opinion of this Trust that probation
services should be commissioned by Probation Trusts as intended
by the OM Act.
5. 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?
5.1 Avon and Somerset Probation Trust can demonstrate
effective governance of performance, quality and value in accordance
to the work contracted by the Director of Offender Management.
5.2 It is noted that HM Inspectorate of Probation
who assess the quality of the delivery of offender management
will only utilise trust assessors who have an appropriate professional
(probation officer) qualification to make judgement about offender
management cases assessed. The trust accords with this view that
staff holding the recognised qualification are essential in key
elements of effective offender management and supervision. This
is not to overlook the very important incorporation of work by
staff with other qualification. The Trust recognises there is
an important place for properly selected work to be undertaken
by staff who are not qualified probation officers.
5.3 The Trust is proud of the statutory service
it provides to victims of serious sexual and violent crime and
considers this element of its work as fundamental in the delivery
of effective offender management. It is, in our experience, a
significant advantage that an organisation delivering offender
management has appropriate direct experience and knowledge of
perspectives and requirements of victims of crime.
5.4 The current delivery contract between the
Trust and Secretary of State does not include delivery of probation
services to short term sentenced prisoners, many of whom present
significant risk of re-offending. Operating within existing resources
Avon and Somerset Probation Trust has developed Integrated Offender
Management (IMPACT) approach with the police and others where
offenders presenting a high risk of acquisitive re-offending are
targeted. Included are short term prisoners who are assessed as
highest risk of re-offending. The IMPACT scheme piloted in Bristol
is currently being rolled out throughout Avon and Somerset.
6. Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
6.1 There are circumstances where demand is not
in alignment with supply. Within this Trust area the notable shortcoming
is with the alcohol services commissioned. In relation to requirements
provided by the Probation Trust the challenge is to ensure that
the flow and volume of delivery meets that of court demand and
the current commissioning arrangements do not support this well.
6.2 The degree to which sentencers receive data
to inform what is in effect their commissioning role and its impact
upon the provider is a matter that the trust is working hard to
develop. Our local research suggests that sentencers, as representatives
of their local communities, welcome provision of such information
and are open to understand more fully and be better informed about
the impact of their "spending" activities.
7. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
7.1 Currently ASPT expends approximately 20%
of its budget on private and voluntary sector services. This includes
direct offender services, support services and most substantially
property and IT services delivered through national contract.
The property and IT contracts are recognised as not delivering
value for money as emphatically expressed in the KPMG study of
probation undertaken for MoJ (2008).
7.2 The private and voluntary sectors clearly
have a significant role in the delivery of probation services
but it is the opinion of this trust that offender management should
be undertaken by appropriately qualified/trained staff employed
and managed by the trust and that other services should be commissioned
by the trust. Probation trusts commissioning to local needs within
a national framework are well placed to identify where private
and voluntary sector providers represent best value for money.
It is crucial for such competition to take place that trusts should
be able to operate with the same business freedoms as private
and voluntary sector partners.
7.3 A commissioning model needs to be agreed
to determine how probation trusts should be the local commissioners
working closely with the newly proposed police local criminal
justice/crime commissioners.
7.4 Offender management remains a cornerstone
to future delivery with appropriate national consistency and sufficient
assurance for ministers in meeting public protection objectives.
Contracting for Offender Management services with a variety of
providers risk serious fragmentation. It is the strong opinion
of this Trust that Integrated Offender Management (IOM) approaches,
aligning probation, police and other local organisations, is the
most constructive future course.
8. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
8.1 The Bristol IOM (IMPACT) has extended capacity
within existing resources for offender management to those
offenders released from custody who present the most likely risk
of re-offending. Targeting is based upon assessed risk of acquisitive
re-offending and not on the type of sentence. The Bristol IOM
model is equally applicable to those offenders presenting the
most serious risk of harm.
9. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
9.1 Trusts and other providers can and should
make more use of restorative justice, not just as a sentence but
as a potential diversion from prosecution in appropriate cases.
Our IOM is making progress in this matter.
9.2 Probation trusts have valuable experience
of working with victims of serious crime relevant skills gained
that should be applied to restorative justice development.
10. 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?
10.1 Probation trusts as providers have a very
proud and effective history of addressing diversity and equalities
issues. The Trust performance analysis incorporates diversity
criteria for improvement purpose. It will be important for any
providers of probation delivery to at least meet or exceed the
current attention paid to diversity and equalities.
11. Is the provision of training adequate?
11.1 In general the Probation Qualification Training
Framework is welcomed by ASPT, and especially the attention paid
to the development of probation service officers (who do not have
a professional qualification to operate as a probation officer)
but who are thereby enabled to take on a greater range of functions
delivering increased value for money.
11.2 For the future more competitive environment,
training will need to encompass greater commercial awareness by
all staff as work proposed and undertaken by our staff has a financial
implication and needs to be better understood in a value for money
framework.
11.3 In this respect, providers coming into the
probation delivery market will also need appropriately recognised
training for staff as a basis for consistent performance.
September 2010
| 
