Written evidence from the South Yorkshire
Probation Trust (PB 57)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— South
Yorkshire Probation Trust has consistently been the most successful
Trust in reducing re-offending. We believe this is due to the
productive relationships we enjoy with our local communities.
We feel strongly that this success can be replicated nationally
if the right commissioning structures, governance and relationships
are put in place. Our submission outlines one possible model to
achieve this.
— This
paper proposes fundamental changes to the way in which offender
intervention services are commissioned. An overarching body (which
we have called the "Joint Commissioning and Reducing Re-Offending
Board") would be established (chaired by the new Police and
Crime Commissioner), with responsibility for commissioning all
interventions from a diverse market of providers. We believe that
this model will address the shortfalls which are apparent in the
current arrangements, resulting in significant reductions in re-offending,
providing better value for money and establishing a coherent framework
from which all parties would work together towards community safety
and the needs of victims.
— We
propose that there should be one agency with responsibility for
managing offenders through the "Offender Management Model".
Offenders have complex needs with no "one size fits all"
approach being effective. The principle of continuity is one which
remains important to preserve.
1. Introduction
Reducing Reoffending
1.1 South Yorkshire is the only Trust in England
and Wales where there has been a statistically significant reduction
in re-offending levels since the introduction of the measure.
More than 90% of offenders under South Yorkshire's supervision
do not re-offend and the county is therefore a safer place because
of our work. South Yorkshire Police are similarly witnessing significant
reductions in overall crime levels.
Working in Partnership
1.2 We believe that success is due to our integrated
work with Local Authorities and the extent to which we are embedded
into the communities of South Yorkshire. Preventing offenders
from committing more crime is our core purpose, and re-offending
rates are the ultimate measure of our effectiveness. As part of
our commitment to reducing reoffending, we have been keen to develop
multi-agency initiatives such as Integrated Offender Management
and the Restorative Justice approach.
1.3 Our proposed model builds on our experience
and we believe would replicate our success throughout the country.
It is a model which will ensure the Probation Service delivers
more successfully for less cost.
2. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
2.1 No.
2.2 In 2008-09 NOMS HQ expenditure increased
by over 40% in real terms compared with the previous year. This
was the first financial year following the reorganisation of NOMS
and a significant development of a regional structure of commissioning.
2.3 The current commissioning process, in our
experience, is overly complex and bureaucratic, with no real contractual
relationship with the Director of Offender Management (DOM), and
no ability to negotiate targets or contract change. There are
centrally set targets which are broken down regionally and then
to Trusts. There is no reflection of local need/demand, nor the
freedoms available to negotiate locally driven targets. As such,
there is no support for a continued regional tier of management.
2.4 Probation Trusts align more naturally with
the Police, Local Authorities, and within local communities rather
than with the Prison Service; whose command and control organisation
is not conducive to commissioning.
Outcomes and Principles
2.5 Any model should deliver the following outcomes:
— Proper
reparation to victims.
— More
effective rehabilitation.
— Punishment
and public protection.
2.6 The following principles need to be embedded:
— Local
delivery - local targets.
— Working
in partnership - with all sectors.
— Justice
Re-investment - community democracy.
— Economies
of scale - more for less.
— A pooled
budget.
— Links
to the new Police structure - recognises and works with the Police
and Crime Commissioner.
— Sentencer
involvement.
— Statutory
obligation to reduce reoffending.
— Quality
standards.
— Diverse
market of provision.
— Efficiency
- avoiding duplication and inconsistency.
— Innovation.
— Outcome
focussed delivery.
Offender Management
2.7 Current desistance research has identified
positive relationships as a key to change. Since the process of
giving up crime is different for each person, any response needs
to be tailored rather than having a "one size fits all"
approach. It is the single offender manager who is in a position
to develop the relationship with the offender and to ensure that
there is a properly bespoke approach to their offending.
2.8 Research supports our belief that there should
be one agency with overall responsibility for the management of
the offender. We concur with Crispin Blunt who has indicated his
confidence in the ability of Probation Trusts. We are firmly of
the view that Probation Trusts should retain the responsibility
for delivery of the "Offender Management Model".
2.9 Probation staff have the necessary skills
and expertise to undertake a full "Assessment", formulate
a meaningful "Sentence Plan", oversee the "Implementation"
of the relevant Interventions within the Sentence Plan, "Review"
and "Evaluate" the Sentence Plan, whilst undertaking
"Continual Risk Assessment" and "Enforcing"
the order when necessary.
Delivery of Interventions (see Appendix 1)
2.10 The Howard League for Penal Reform argues
that many offenders are likely to be affected by a multitude of
problems. It is therefore essential that Probation Trusts do not
commission services in isolation of the other key agencies.
2.11 We are therefore proposing that all
offender related interventions should be commissioned through
a "Joint Commissioning and Reducing Reoffending Board"
(JCRRB)
2.12 The JCRRB would have members from all the
Criminal Justice Agencies along with other key organisations such
as Health and Local Authorities, representation from sentencers,
the community, victims, the voluntary sector, (including the use
of volunteers).
2.13 All the key agencies (with the shared aim
of reducing reoffending) should have a proportion of their budget
"top-sliced" to go into the "Reducing Reoffending
Pooled Budget". This budget would include the bringing
together of other funding streams which are currently identified
to address offending eg Supporting People, DAT funding, DIP budget
etc. By commissioning services through a pooled budget, efficiencies
would be realised to a greater extent than the current fragmented
approach. The JCRRB should be given the statutory responsibility
for reducing reoffending in its' communities.
2.14 Our model embraces the concept of "Justice
Reinvestment" offering a flexible, strategic framework which
supports the redirection of resources into one source to maximise
services for offenders. Justice Reinvestment is not just about
redirecting money from agencies, it is also about involving communities
representatives in the process of saying how it is spent. The
JCRRB would be responsible for identifying local need/demand through
Local Delivery Units (OASys data), local intelligence, and through
consultation with stakeholders (including local communities).
2.15 The JCRRB would promote and encourage a
diverse market, with delivery of all interventions (eg Accredited
Programmes, Community Payback, Attendance Centres, Alcohol treatment,
Drug treatment, Restorative Justice etc) being undertaken
by the public, private and third sector, including the development
of Social Enterprises … this would be where they are the
best provider offering outcome focussed approaches within "What
Works" principles. There would be incentive/penalty based
contracts in place which would be managed by the JCRRB. We await
with interest the outcome of the Social Impact Bond pilot in Peterborough
which introduces the concept of "Payment by Results".
2.16 The JCRRB would have in place the capability
to encourage innovation and also business development capacity
to identify and attract new funding opportunities.
2.17 The new Police structure abolishes Police
Authorities and introduces a Police and Crime Commissioner role
who will be directly elected at the level of each force in England
and Wales. The Commissioner will hold the Chief Constable to account
for the full range of their responsibilities. It makes sense for
this accountability to be extended to the governance of Probation
Trusts.
2.18 The JCRRB would also be established at force
level, and would be chaired by the Police and Crime Commissioner.
The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) currently has a statutory
duty to develop and deliver a Reducing Reoffending Plan. It is
logical therefore for the JCRRB to be accountable to the CSP.
In order to achieve further efficiencies, there should there be
a single CSP per Police Authority area rather than for each Local
Authority.
Performance and Quality Management
2.19 The Secretary of State would need assurance
that the JCRRB is delivering in accordance with its aims. There
should be a commitment to minimise centrally imposed targets and
bureaucracy by enabling the JCRRB to set and monitor locally agreed
targets. It is suggested that there are a limited number of high
level targets addressing the following areas:
JCRRB
— Reducing
Crime and Reoffending
— Commissioning
standards
Trust:
— Sufficiency
in SFOs.
— HMIP
standards.
— Value
for Money.
— Customer
Service Excellence.
2.20 Sheffield Hallam University have undertaken
a feasibility study exploring the potential of a "signposting"
web-site. It is proposed, that this will eventually act as a "provider
hub" through which interventions will be purchased by the
Offender Manager once the single offender needs assessment had
been completed (OASys). Provider membership of the hub would be
dependant on reaching a quality threshold and providing interventions
to published specifications.
2.21 South Yorkshire Probation Trust along with
Sheffield Hallam University is intent on investigating the notion
of interventions being spot-purchased at the point at which they
are required. It is suggested that an electronic purchasing system
in which sentence plan production triggers the purchasing of the
necessary intervention through the provider hub is both entirely
possible and would ensure the best price available.
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
Probation Trusts
3.1 Probation Trusts are improving upon the excellent
performance against targets which had been previously demonstrated
by Probation Boards.
Offender Management
3.2 As stated earlier, we propose that there
should be one agency with responsibility for managing offenders
through the "Offender Management Model". Offenders
have complex needs with no "one size fits all" approach
being effective. The principle of continuity is one which remains
important to preserve. In terms of having oversight of the Order/Licence,
it makes complete sense to have one agency ensuring that each
offender has a single offender manager to help them address the
often complex, multiple and inter-related problems they face.
3.3 The unique skills and expertise of probation
staff include their ability to identify, understand, assess and
manage risk, and to deliver the "Offender Management Model",
which includes (in our proposal) the development of an individualised
costed Sentence Plan. We believe that offenders going through
the criminal justice system are "over-assessed". The
Offender Assessment System (OASys) needs to be simplified and
should be promoted as the single assessment tool. Under
our model outlined above, all providers which are commissioned
through the JCRRB would need to agree that they would accept the
OASys as the single assessment tool - rather than the offender
being re-assessed by each different agency.
3.4 The "interventions" would then
be "purchased" through a diverse market which includes
public/private and 3rd sector agencies. The services would be
centrally commissioned through the JCRRB (as outlined above),
although depending upon the success of the provider hub, it could
be that ultimately traditional commissioning and contract management
are no longer necessary.
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 Yes. All the requirements that can be attached
to community sentences are available to sentencers in South Yorkshire.
4.2 There is support for a significant review
of the sentencing framework as evidence shows that too many offenders
are being "up-tariffed" within the court system. Prison
spending rose from £2.87 billion in 2003-04 to nearly £4
billion in 2008-09. The numbers of people under probation supervision
also increased by 38.7% in the decade to 2009, with spending rising
from £665 million to £1 billion in the seven years to
2007-08. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies believe that
there has been a general trend of imposing tougher community sentences
which has the paradoxical effect of increasing the likelihood
of breach which results in an increase in custodial sentences.
4.3 The current sentencing practice is that once
an offence has been deemed to be "serious enough to warrant
a community order", it is very unlikely that there will be
a proposal or disposal for fine/discharge. The courts need to
make more use of sentences which do not require probation resource
ie fines, discharges, Attendance Centres, Curfews, Restorative
Justice etc in order to divert low risk offenders from probation
caseloads in order to preserve the principle of "resources
following risk".
5. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
5.1 We are very committed to the concept of a
diverse market of provision to increase the capacity to deal with
offenders, but only where they are the best value provider. However
we firmly believe that the interventions should be jointly commissioned
and controlled (see section 2). Any provider which aims to deliver
interventions should be able to demonstrate "What Works"
principles, be outcome focussed and flexible in their provision.
5.2 We are also keen to support the development
of Social Enterprises—profit making companies which are
about community improvement with a percentage of the profit being
reinvested into the development of the company.
6. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
6.1 Yes. If we reconfigure our resources and
re-prioritise. We have the commitment, training, skills, staff,
community location, links, partnerships, confidence to do this.
6.2 Statistics show that offenders who are sentenced
to less than twelve months in prison are more likely to reoffend
than others. Reconvictions rates for those who served a sentence
of less than 12 months in 2008 was 61%. A conservative estimate
is that there are approximately 10% of offenders in custody who
would in fact be Tier 1 offenders if they were in the community
(ie low risk of reoffending and low risk of serious harm). It
costs more than £50,000 a year on average to keep an offender
in prison against £2,800 to manage an offender on a community
order. Prison should be reserved for those individuals who are
likely to cause high risk of harm to the community.
6.3 In South Yorkshire, we have developed an
assessment tool based on reoffending statistical methodology which
allows us to focus more accurately on those offenders who are
likely to cause most of the crime. We will, in October 2010, begin
to use this to identify the cohort of offenders who will be managed
through a multi-agency Integrated Offender Management approach.
We are confident that this will have a positive impact on both
reoffending rates and our ability to deploy resources to their
fullest effect.
6.4 Probation staff have become demoralised
by the need achieve targets and standards which have been driven
by the Centre rather than to meet local need/demand. Staff are
currently tied up in bureaucracy and administration for approximately
70% of their time. There is a real need to remove some of this
unnecessary burden on staff and free them up to spend more time
with offenders. We await the outcome of the Surrey and Sussex
Probation Trust Professional Judgement Pilot which is aimed at
reducing bureaucracy and giving more freedom to practitioners
to exercise their professional judgement in managing cases.
7. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
7.1 Yes. Restorative Justice offers victims and
members of the community a real and visible way of being involved
in resolving incidents and issues in a way that meets the needs
and concerns of the community. It empowers by giving victims a
voice. With regards to the offender, it makes them more accountable
and face up to the consequences of their actions. It is also a
more proportionate method of dealing with low level offending
and, for children and young people, does not unnecessarily criminalise
them.
7.2 South Yorkshire Police, in partnership with
the South Yorkshire Local Criminal Justice Board, has implemented
Restorative Justice across all Districts. Further training is
due to take place which will extend the approach to multi agency
involvement in facilitating Restorative Justice in South Yorkshire.
7.3 We are currently exploring further opportunities
to extend the use of Restorative Justice:
— Prevention/Early
intervention.
— Deferred
sentences.
— Low
level Specified Activity.
— With
more prolific offenders through the Integrated Offender Management
route (SSOs and COs).
— Licences.
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?
Is the provision of training adequate?
Diversity
8.1 We believe that we are skilled at identifying
and managing differential risk levels. Whilst we have made tremendous
progress in responding to the needs of black and minority ethnic
offenders, we accept that there is still progress to be made.
Further, we are of the opinion that far too many women are sent
to prison. Given the opportunity of working with those offenders
in the community, we are firmly of the view that the outcomes
for both the individual and the communities within with they live
would be far improved.
Training
8.2 The new Probation Qualification Framework
is welcomed in that we are able to develop existing probation
service officers through to qualified probation officers in-house.
A full evaluation will need to take place before we can comment
upon its efficacy.
8.3 Leaders of the new Probation Service need
a different skill set to those of the old and a strategy should
be developed to address the shortfall.
September 2010
| 
