Written evidence from Nacro (PB 61)
INTRODUCTION
Nacro is the UK's largest crime reduction charity,
with over 40 years experience of working with offenders and those
at risk of crime. We run over 300 service delivery projects in
communities across England and Wales and, last year, around 90,000
people benefited from their contact with Nacro. Our services include:
prevention and early intervention for young people; education,
training and employment for prisoners and offenders in the community;
and resettlement services (including accommodation) for those
on release from custody. Nacro Community Enterprises is a Registered
Social Landlord.
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
Commissioning needs to balance a number of factors:
the aggregation of provision with localism, and the imperative
to reduce reoffending with optimum use of public funds.
Significant savings could be made by aggregating
current delivery arrangements; commissioning services over larger
geographical areas; and enabling private and voluntary sector
organisations to compete for high-volume contracts inside prison,
in the community, and through-the-gate. In view of the scope and
scale of these contracts, this would lend itself to central commissioning
of these services, for example in the way in which central framework
contracts have been established for the provision of unpaid work.
Notwithstanding the need to exploit economies of
scale through outsourcing, it is important to ensure that services
are locally responsive and that delivery retains the confidence
of ordinary people in local communities. It is well documented
that much of the provision for community safety and services for
offenders and their families lies outside the justice system,
with local authorities and health being the key players.
In the light of this:
— Lessons
learned about locality based commissioning from the Total Place
Pilots should be pursued on a wider scale.
— More
explicit strategic local links should be made between: community
safety; reducing crime; reducing the fear of crime; and reducing
reoffending.
— There
is a need for an overarching protocol on data sharing between
agencies to support joint working within local areas.
— Increased
engagement of the voluntary and private sector (and local employers)
should be developed as a key strategic theme in the delivery of
offender services going forward.
Nacro supports the notion of commissioning arrangements
which provide more opportunities for the private, voluntary and
community sector to get more involved in the delivery of offender
services. The strategic focus must be on reducing reoffending
and achieving other social outcomes as opposed to who delivers
the service. Broadening the thinking on reducing reoffending and
allowing new players to take part must be the way ahead. This
is likely to include payment-by-results. Under this model the
terms of engagement changes between those designing/delivering
services and those commissioning them. The emphasis moves from
"commissioning" to "investment" and responsibility
for service design rests mainly with the provider. Nacro strongly
supports such a shift. Both sides are then focused on delivering
agreed outcomes. Given the business risks inherent in any payment
by results system, the necessity for business-like alliances,
joint ventures and partnerships come to the fore, forcing wider
collaboration between the sectors. This in turn could lead to
better delivery of services.
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?
The population under probation supervision at the
end of 2009 was 241,500, a 1% fall from the previous year. However,
over the longer term, this figure has increased by 38% from 175,000
in 1999.[62]
Staff sickness levels in the probation service are among the highest
in the public sector. The average caseload for probation officers
is well over 30, which the Chief Inspector of Probation has acknowledged
is extremely demanding.
As would be expected, performance across different
Probation Trusts varies, as shown by performance against key indicators
and the results of Her Majesty's Inspectorate reports. Probation
performance is measured using the Integrated Probation Performance
Framework (IPPF) and according to Ministry of Justice data for
the final quarter in 2009-10,[63]
all probation areas are performing at level 3 or 4, indicating
good or exceptional performance.
That said, we believe that significant cost savings
could be made by commissioning services differently; reducing
management overheads; and allowing organisations to compete in
an open market. Compliance rates could be improved by using the
voluntary sector's expertise in engaging with de-motivated and
hard-to-help individuals; and levels of public confidence/involvement
(particularly in community sentences) could be raised.
Delivery of services through-the-gate for released
prisoners remains inconsistent, partly because of the transient
nature of the prison population but also because of the inconsistent
manner in which these services are commissioned and funded. Prisoners
aged 21 and over and sentenced to less than 12 months custody
receive no statutory supervision post-release. This means that
probation officers are unable to work with that group of offenders.
But recent pilots testing "layered offender management"
(LOM) have shown that it is possible to provide offender management
to greater numbers of offenders using an assessment of sentence
length and risk of re-offending and risk of harm.
We believe that change could be promoted by the greater
involvement of the private and voluntary sector in the delivery
of Offender Management services. We are aware that most Probation
delivery is divided between Offender Management and Interventions
but the bulk of this has been monopolised by the public sector.
If the future commissioning landscape is to be based on Payment
by Results, there is a strong logic in ensuring that the organisation
which provides the interventions to the offender also carries
responsibility for risk/needs assessment and sentence planning.
Whereas these functions have traditionally been provided by the
public sector, they could be outsourced to private/voluntary sector
providers working to formal contractual arrangements/standards.
This would maximise the benefits that the voluntary sector brings
in terms of "reach" into different sections of communities
and enable "ordinary people" to get more involved in
the community supervision of offenders through volunteering, mentoring
and befriending. The voluntary sector's record of engaging employers
and social enterprises would bring added benefits in terms of
getting offenders into jobs. All of these measures would have
a positive affect on levels of public engagement/confidence which
is a crucial part of successful community sentencing.
3. Are magistrates and judges able to fully
utilise the requirements that can be attached to community Sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
We are aware that sentencers often feel frustrated
by the implicit rationing of some probation interventions (accredited
offending behaviour programmes, for example) and the resulting
delays in offenders accessing programmes. Although this is, to
a degree, inevitable in a system with finite resources, it also
demonstrates two inherent weaknesses in the current arrangements.
Probation Service staff tend to be deployed inflexibly and to
particular tasks, whether this is the delivery of accredited offending
behaviour programmes, the supervision of unpaid work and so on.
We think that considerable benefit could be derived from allowing
other providers into the market to allow a more flexible use of
staff and configuration of services.
In addition, we think that the current sentencing
arrangements, which require rehabilitative interventions to be
added as a requirement of a community order (and which are therefore
seen as punitive by the offender) limits the flexibility and responsiveness
of the provider of those services. The punitive element of the
disposal (the primary contract) should, as far as possible, be
separated out from the rehabilitative interventions which, in
turn should be driven by individual need.
Key gaps in provision must also be met either to
enable magistrates and judges to fully utilise requirements attached
to community sentences within the current framework or more generally
to ensure that holistic rehabilitative services can be provided.
In particular, access to mental health treatment requirement and
alcohol treatment requirement must be improved. Specialist services
in these areas should be commissioned from independent providers,
especially using the voluntary sector, and offered as an integral
element of supervision where the same provider is responsible
for both the management of the case and the direct provision of
interventions as outlined earlier.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sector play in the delivery of probation services?
Despite all of the thinking and activity following
the publication of the Carter Report (2004), private and voluntary
sector involvement in probation service delivery is still largely
peripheral. Outsourced contracts have been few and far between;
of relatively small monetary value; and tendered over short contractual
periods, typically twelve months to three years. In view of this,
neither sector has been able to exploit the economies of scale
that would have been possible if the contracts related to higher
offender volumes with longer contractual terms. We therefore welcome
the Government's intentions, as articulated in the MOJ Business
Plan and by Justice Ministers, to provide much greater opportunities
for these sectors to get more involved. This is an opportunity
for new thinking and new resources to be brought to bear on intractable
questions of reducing reoffending and associated social policy
areas. This is already being demonstrated with the launch of the
Social Impact Bond Pilot in Peterborough.
The voluntary sector has a long and successful track
record of delivering outsourced services to offenders including:
drug and alcohol treatment; housing; bail support; employment,
training and education; and resettlement. Over the number of years,
charities like Nacro have been successful in engaging the harder-to-help
in marginalised communities, recruiting local staff and volunteers
to motivate offenders and remove the barriers associated with
poor compliance. The private sector has a long and successful
track record of delivering large-volume Government contracts including:
prisoner escort services; and monitoring and surveillance services;
facilities management and back-office support and other logistical
services. A mixed economy of provision, utilising the strength
of the private sector to mange the business risks associated with
large-scale outsourcing (including payment by results) and the
unique approach of the voluntary sector would help to transform
the delivery of offender services, reduce crime and increase public
confidence.
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with the move away from short term custodial Sentences?
On the one hand this a key question, given that any
reduction of the prison population would increase the burden on
any organisations delivering offender supervision in the community,
especially at a time of shrinking resources. On the other hand,
this is not justification for continue with the short term incarceration
of offenders who do not pose a danger to the public, where the
costs (financial and social) of any custodial measures far outweigh
community-based methods. This is all the more reason for restructuring
the way in which offender management services are commissioned
and delivered, pursuing the roll out of large scale outsourcing
to the private and voluntary sector, strengthening pooled commissioning
arrangements and trialling/testing models of payment by results.
6. Could Probation Trusts make better use
of Restorative Justice?
There is evidence that restorative approaches have
an overwhelmingly positive effect on victims and have a role to
play in changing offenders' attitudes and behaviours.
Studies show that these approaches reduce reoffending
with some offenders and play can play a pivotal role in prevention,
early intervention and pre court diversion. Restorative Justice
offers a further opportunity for the voluntary and community sector
to have significant involvement and for "ordinary" people
to take part, given specialist training in restorative conferencing,
and it is logical to assume that this could have a positive knock-on
effect on levels of public confidence in community sentences.
Given the potentially sensitive and life-changing nature of restorative
conferencing, it is crucially important that adequate investment
is made in restorative justice if it is to play a key role in
probation delivery. This should not be confused with core models
of reparation which could and should feature more strongly in
community orders and release licences.
7. Does the Probation Service handle different
groups of offenders appropriately eg women, young adults, Black
and minority ethnic groups and high risk and medium risk offenders?
Advances have been made in the management of: reducing
reoffending rates; offender assessment; sentence planning; high
risk and dangerous offenders through the multi agency public protection
panels; access to drug and alcohol treatment; and enforcement
of orders. That said there is a way to go in terms of: raising
public confidence/involvement in the system; joining services
up across geographical boundaries and through-the-gate; providing
"move-on" resources for offenders in substance misuse
treatment services; and improving performance in respect of compliance.
Much more progress could be made in delivering cost efficiencies,
involving the private and voluntary sector and local employers.
These deficits apply to a larger degree with specific
offender groups, notably women and offenders from black and minority
ethnic groups. Resources which are specific to these groups are
patchy and there is a need to build capacity and join up provision
for offenders inside and outside custody.
The last government implemented policy changes triggered
by the publication of the Corston Review.[64]
Baroness Jean Corston had outlined the need for a distinct
radically different, gender-specific, integrated approach to reducing
reoffending by women. The government accepted the majority of
her recommendations for change and significant investment in community
provision followed. At the heart of this investment was an acknowledgement
that services for women offenders could best be provided by specialist
voluntary sector providers. Community based "one-stop-shop"
models were based on the learning produced by the Together Women
pilot programmes in the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside.
Some of the services delivered through these programmes have been
maintained and are now operating through local commissioning.
The Diverting Women from Crime Strategy[65]
is a more recent national initiative aimed at reducing the use
of custody for less serious women offenders and where possible
diverting them out of the criminal justice system all together.
The strategy also encompasses women deemed to be
"at risk of offending" and aims to help them access
services which will address their needs and avert potential criminality.
All of these policy changes acknowledge that probation
has not served women well. We know that limited resources have
resulted in rationing of services and "resources follow risk".
Women are a small minority of overall offenders and risk assessments
based on risk of harm to others result in them frequently being
assessed as low risk. This means that the gender-specific holistic
approaches necessary for effective work with women have not been
available through traditional probation supervision. Women report
feeling "short-changed" by probation appointments which
can be brief and perfunctory, with no time to explore problems,
since the woman is perceived as "low risk" and the probation
supervisor has higher risk (and therefore more pressing) male
offenders to manage. There are few gender specific accredited
programmes for women and participation in programmes can be problematic
where a woman may be the sole female offender among a large group
of males.
The development of specialist community provision
for women, led by the voluntary sector, is therefore critically
important. This provision, however, is at serious risk of contraction
when the central funding for the new services comes to an end
in March 2011. Resources provided by central government have been
matched by investment from charitable trusts[66]
but continuity of services will only be possible through local
commissioning. In the present fiscal climate resources from local
authorities will be squeezed and it is difficult to see how the
services currently available will be maintained.
Nacro has long been a member of the Transition to
Adulthood Alliance (T2A) which has focused on the policy gap relating
to young adults in the criminal justice system.
The T2A Alliance sets out a clear set of recommendations
for change in its manifesto[67]
and Nacro endorses these. There is a need for a differential approach
to which recognises the developmental and social and economic
realities for young adults. There must be a commitment to design
improved community sentences which reflect the drug, alcohol and
mental health needs of young adults and better arrangements for
transition from the youth to the adult justice system. This will
include the need for better communication and information sharing
arrangements between youth offending teams and probation, along
with improved commissioning arrangements to enable service provision
that crosses age boundaries and can be accessed flexibly by those
in the 16-25 age group.
There must be improved resettlement provision for
all young adults leaving custody and intensive support
for those who require it. Currently the probation service does
not routinely provide anything distinctive for those over the
age of 18 unless they qualify through other characteristics, for
example, being a prolific offender.
Mentoring support, with appropriately matched mentors
in relation to gender and ethnicity can make a significant difference
to young people's chances of reform and peer mentoring can be
particularly effective. Voluntary organisations are well placed
to offer such services and have a track record of success in designing
initiatives with service-user perspectives built-in.
Services for older offenders must also be tailored
to meet their specific needs. In 2009 Nacro was commissioned by
the Department of Health and NOMS to produce a good practice guide
and training resource aimed at staff working with older offenders
in prisons. This has been extremely well received and there is
a need for the learning to be adapted to meet the needs of staff
working with older offenders in the community. In particular,
there is an ageing population in Approved Premises and staff would
benefit from better training to enable them to deal effectively
with age-related needs.
For Black and other minority ethnic groups there
is a need for culturally sensitive service provision and, once
again, specialist voluntary sector organisations are well-placed
to assist. Some probation trusts have experience of contracting
with local community organisations working with specific faith
or cultural groups to provide culturally specific services. Nacro
supports this approach and partnership arrangements must include
a range of providers that match the demographics of those under
probation supervision. Much more must be done to raise awareness
of race issues and to understand the complexities of prejudice
and discrimination, including work with offenders as well as with
staff. Traditionally, voluntary organisations have been better
than statutory agencies in developing training that fully addresses
these issues.
Nationally, the NOMS Equalities Group has focused
much of its work on offenders in custody. This needs to change
to encompass offenders serving community sentences. There is a
need to go beyond training in equality issues and to develop tool
kits and resources that assist staff on a day to day basis in
working effectively with offenders from specific groups.
Again, Nacro has produced tool-kits and good practice
guides, commissioned by NOMS, for working with Lesbian, Gay and
Bi-sexual people in prisons and also with Gypsy, Traveller and
Roma people in prisons. Much of this learning could be adapted
for use with offenders in the community
Proper attention to equality and inclusion considerations
will result in an improvement to the overall quality of engagement
with offenders. Offender Management and Interventions must be
tailored appropriately to meet the needs of specific groups of
people if reoffending is to be reduced.
November 2010
62 Ministry of Justice (2010), Offender Management
Caseload Statistics 2009, Statistics Bulletin. Back
63
Ministry of Justice (2010) Probation Quarterly Ratings Quarter
4 2009-10. Back
64
Home Office, (2007) The Corston Report: A Review of Women with
Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. Back
65
Ministry of Justice (2009) A Report on the Government's Strategy
for Diverting Women from Crime. Back
66
The Corston Independent Funders Coalition is a group of grant
giving trusts that have provided match funding for services across
the country. Back
67
T2A Young Adults Manifesto, (2009) T2A Alliance. Back
| 
