Written evidence from Bedfordshire Probation
Trust (PB 54)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The framework of the contract between the Secretary
of State and the Trust should be redesigned so that it can explicitly
address both national policy requirements and local agreements
so that it is outcome based. Trusts will require appropriate business
freedoms and flexibilities such as those enjoyed by the private
and third sectors if they are to act efficiently and to deliver
on the contract. This paper advocates a lead provider approach
to commissioning.
1.2 The current national regulatory framework of
audit, inspection, performance reporting, etc., should be reformed
as it is costly, duplicates effort and does not assist to make
governance arrangements simple or transparent.
1.3 Capacity exists within the service but the system
requires some recalibration and review of what probation currently
does. Restorative justice is a positive initiative and, in seeking
to prioritise the evidence of the effectiveness in reducing re-offending,
should be considered. This paper advocates the partnership approach
to these issues.
1.4 In the current climate of change and efficiency
requirements management training should be prioritized to drive
through this agenda.
2. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
2.1 Services are currently commissioned by the Director
of Offender Management via a contract with a local Trust. The
system creates duplication of governance and is bureaucratic.
The aim was to broaden the range of service providers and drive
efficiency by planning which services should be delivered nationally,
which regionally and which locally. There is little evidence this
has happened in practice. The framework of the contract between
the Secretary of State and the Trust should be redesigned so that
it can explicitly address both national policy requirements and
local agreements, tailored to each Trust and reflecting the views
of sentencers. The contract negotiation process should support
this. We also recommend that:
— the
contract between trusts and the Secretary of State is outcomes
based, and
— the
Probation Trust Rating System (PTRS), which sets out national
targets, is streamlined so that it contains only key national
policy indicators.
2.2 Individual Trusts engage in the commissioning
of services at a local level and this does allow for the involvement
of voluntary and third sector organisations. It has the advantages
of improving services but does not necessarily reduce costs. Joint
commissioning of services as part of local partnership arrangements
does have the ability to improve services and reduce costs and
this is an area which deserves greater attention and development.
2.3 It is important to note that the real "commissioner"
of probation services is the court. The separation of the service
from the courts has led to a disconnect between the demand for
the service and how the service is funded.
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 The Government should deliver business freedoms
and flexibilities to Trusts, such as those enjoyed by the private
and third sectors, to enable Probation Trusts to become competitive
and more commercial. The Government should ensure that trusts
are properly represented in the contracting arrangements for all
contracts where trusts are the service end-users.
3.2 The current national regulatory framework of
audit, inspection, performance reporting, etc., should be reformed
so that it provides efficient independent assurance to the public
and Parliament with minimum necessary demand on trusts.
3.3 The commissioning arrangements for Probation
Trusts should be clarified and explicitly based on a "lead
provider" model.
3.4 The process driven targets have improved the
efficiency of the service, and the introduction of OASys (the
offender assessment system) and of accredited programmes have
improved the evidence base of our practice although this area
requires further development.
3.5 We have improved the offer to the court in terms
of the range of interventions we offer and we are working with
a much broader range of offenders. The decline in the use of the
discharge and fine and one end of the scale and the increase in
our responsibilities with regard to public protection management
arrangements at the other has stretched resources. More needs
to be done to promote the use of fines and discharges.
3.6 The Offender Management Act envisaged a system
with an Offender Manager at its centre brokering a range of resources
with which to "manage" an offender including appropriate
prison places. The rise in the prison population has meant that
resourcing and logistical difficulties have meant the Lord Carter's
vision has not been realised. Offender Managers currently both
broker and directly deliver services to offenders. The effectiveness
of Trusts could be substantially improved by a greater attention
to and investment in evidence based practice and by further development
of the wider partnership approach to the management of offenders
as exemplified by Integrated Offender Management Schemes.
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 supervision and unpaid work requirements
remain very popular, perhaps at the expense of some of the less
obvious requirements. Whilst drug treatment services are well
developed, alcohol services and those aimed at offenders with
mental health or dual diagnosis issues are less developed and
available. For the most part, sentences are delivered effectively
but timeliness remains an issue and the ability of the service
to provide meaningful feedback to the court is under developed.
5. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
5.1 Apart from the writing of court and parole reports
which could lead to a conflict of interest, any aspect of the
service could be delivered by the private, third sector or by
a combination of private, third sector and public. This approach
would drive efficiency and innovation but would lead to a much
more fragmented service delivery model. This could lead to accountability
difficulties and would complicate local partnership arrangements
which already struggle to work effectively with third sector providers.
6. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
6.1 The service does have the capacity in that the
infra-structure for what we deliver is already in place but the
following steps would also be necessary: we would need to recalibrate
the offer to the courts so other cheaper sentencing options are
fully utilised, ie attendance sentences, fines and discharges;
we would need to consider if all accredited programmes are cost
effective and reduce the range on offer to the court; we would
need to examine the purpose and nature of the sentencing information
currently given to the court and assess for cost effectiveness
and examine the information currently provided to parole boards.
If these steps were taken I think the additional resource requirements
would be modest and would create significant savings in the cost
of imprisonment. The obligations of other agencies in relation
to offenders would need to be specified to facilitate reductions
in re-offending. At present the service subsides the responsibilities
of health and the local authority in relation to their responsibilities
to offenders.
7. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
7.1 Yes.
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 The service has traditionally offered a service
to white men which has been adapted to the needs of the young,
women and black and ethnic minority offenders. More could be done
but it is essential to be mindful of the evidence base. For example
whilst general offender management programmes were designed for
men they appear, in some circumstances, to be more effective at
reducing re-offending than wrap around programmes aimed at women.
This may be because of differences in offender need as opposed
to crimniogenic need. Resource issues have also played a part
in that bespoke activity aimed at a particular group can bring
cost implications in terms of translation costs or crèche
facilities.
8.2 The youth adult transition is an area that requires
particular attention in that work carried out in relation to prolific
offenders would seem to indicate that is an important driver of
re-offending.
9. Is the provision of training adequate?
9.1 Training for non qualified staff has been very
poor but the new qualification framework aims to address this.
Training for qualified staff has concentrated on accredited programmes
and has lacked a career pathway approach. The service as a whole
has adopted an entirely piecemeal attitude to management training.
Training for the Trust Boards and for managers in relation to
business development and commissioning is also necessary.
October 2010
| 
