Written evidence from the Hertfordshire
Probation Trust (PB 63)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The responses and evidence provided in this
paper accompany the original submission 9 September 2010 and are
drawn from the day to day operations of Hertfordshire Probation
Trust.
Hertfordshire Probation Trust (HPT) serves a county
with a population of one million. In 2009-10 we commenced 3,033
offenders on community orders and supervised 440 on licence. During
2009-10 338 offenders successfully completed their accredited
programmes against a cumulative target of 305 and the Trust achieved
initial green star status in the national assessment of probation
trusts. We became a Probation Trust on 1st April 2010 as part
of the second wave in the Probation Trust programme.
— The
ambition to reduce re-offending is not disputed but application
of measures by a payment by results approach needs to be sensitive
to what is and is not within control of the provider if it is
to be effectively deployed or it could risk the development of
perverse incentives or inaccurate conclusions.
— Offenders
are citizens who have offended against the community and can be
assessed as less deserving and attention to this group could lead
to criticism by the community particularly at a time of austerity
and economic pressures on the majority, this can be a particular
pressure for local authorities when considering services such
as accommodation, or health services in respect of mental health
interventions. This issue needs to be addressed frankly if we
are to facilitate cooperation across local statutory partnerships
so that resources are appropriately targeted to reduce reoffending.
— The
payment by results approach is likely to secure a stronger level
of engagement if the outcomes defined are contained and achievable,
such as commencement and completion of treatment/intervention,
provision and retention of accommodation, commencement and completion
of qualification. An overall supplementary payment linked to reoffending
levels could by used to incentivise partnership cooperation, whereby
all agencies were working to an overall shared outcome.
— There
are strong fiscal arguments for tackling the reasons for reoffending,
as this cohort of the community and their families are likely
to draw heavily on a wide number of key public sector providers.
— Probation
Trusts are very well placed to know local providers and the local
leadership of agencies who have services that can contribute to
reoffending.
— The
scope for joint commissioning with local providers could be increased
considerably if the Trust had the capacity to carry over under
spends for longer term investment. Such a freedom would significantly
increase the opportunity for longer term planning and joint commissioning.
This will also promote value for money and opportunities to achieve
greater efficiency savings to reinvest for improved service delivery.
— It
would be helpful if the Probation Trust Board could determine
the issues to be audited, at present a large number of audit days
are determined and imposed on Trusts by the national team, the
priority of these subjects chosen will vary from Trust to Trust
and should be linked to the trust strategic risk register.
— Hertfordshire
Probation Trust has hosted a number of visits for local MPs and
national leaders and would be very happy to provide an opportunity
to members of the Justice Select Committee, where they could have
an informed conversation with a cross grade group of staff. If
helpful we could also facilitate involving other local community
providers who share our determination to continually develop and
improve the effectiveness of offender facing services in Hertfordshire.
What are the relative merits of payment by results
and place based budgeting models as means to encourage local statutory
partnerships and other agencies to reduce reoffending? What can
be learnt from the implementation of payment by results models
in health and welfare reform? What results should determine payment
in applying such a model to criminal justice?
2. The Social Exclusion report 2002 clearly identified
seven pathways which were recognised as the key factors which
contribute to an offender's likelihood to reoffend. The pathways
are:
— Accommodation.
— Attitudes,
Thinking and Behaviour.
— Children
and Families—relationships.
— Drugs
and Alcohol.
— Education,
Learning, Skills and Employment.
— Finance,
Benefit and Debt.
— Health,
in particular Mental Health.
The range of factors can be complex and are usually
interdependent. If an offender on release from prison is
roofless, there is limited merit embarking on addressing other
factors until this is addressed, as their preoccupation is likely
to be where they will sleep that night. It is important interventions
to tackle reoffending are coordinated and sequenced, (usually
by an offender manager). In order to comprehensively tackle reoffending
levels it is necessary that there is ownership to the outcomes
across all relevant statutory agencies. The Probation Service
currently tends to pick up accountability for re-offending levels
as an outcome when it is clear that they are not the providers
of many of the key services required. There has been considerable
debate and uncertainty over the application of reoffending measures,
in 2008 when National Indicator 18 was implemented Hertfordshire
went from demonstrating the "lowest actual rate of reoffending",
(which was the base line measure taken in 2007 against further
movement was measured) to the highest In England and Wales. There
is a concern that perverse incentives could be introduced to influence
such a measure, if the measure is deployed without careful reference
to what may bring influence. The ambition to reduce re-offending
is not disputed but application of measures by a payment by results
approach needs to be sensitive to what is and is not within control
of the provider if it is to be effectively deployed or it could
risk the development of perverse incentives or inaccurate conclusions.
A system of differential payments would more fairly
reflect the challenges Probation faces in working with offenders.
A banding methodology could be worth considering eg:
— Band
1: first time offenders.
— Band
2: an intermediate group between Bands 1 and 3.
— Band
3: prolific offenders and high risk of harm offenders.
Payments could take a ratio of 1:5:10 reflecting
the graduated difficulty of moving these groups away offending.
The ratio for prolific offenders may well need to be higher, given
the complexity and multiple needs this cohort demonstrate. Some
statistical modelling may be helpful in determining levels. It
is important to recognise the point made earlier that a number
of criminogenic factors have to be dealt with outside Probation
eg getting into work, and finding settled accommodation which
between them contribute about 50% of the potential for reducing
re-offending. Differential payments should act as an incentive
to targeting the relevant support towards the more "hard
to change" groups. There is also the potential to make use
of the "PREview" costings indications which are currently
under development by Probation Trusts.
3. While the offender manager can "sign
post" an offender to the relevant agency provider this does
not secure provision. The reality is that many other public sector
agencies will not give resource priority to known offenders, simply
because of their offending history. They are citizens who have
offended against the community and can be assessed as less deserving
and attention to this group could lead to criticism by the community
particularly at a time of austerity and economic pressures on
the majority, this can be a particular pressure for local authorities
when considering services such as accommodation, or health services
in respect of mental health interventions. This issue needs to
be addressed frankly if we are to facilitate cooperation across
local statutory partnerships so that resources are appropriately
targeted to reduce reoffending. There are potential risks if result
measures are only linked to reoffending measures. The payment
by results approach is likely to secure a stronger level of engagement
if the outcomes defined are contained and achievable, such as
commencement and completion of treatment/intervention, provision
and retention of accommodation, commencement and completion of
qualification. An overall supplementary payment linked to reoffending
levels could by used to incentivise partnership cooperation, whereby
all agencies were working to an overall shared outcome. The closest
example is the recent LAA reward grant approach, however in reality
the distribution of the reward grant was dominated by local government
and police and it was harder for small agencies or third sector
providers to bring influence. There is a balance to be achieved
between organising arrangements at a county or district/borough
level and realising savings and managing numbers logistically.
HERTFORDSHIRE PROBATION TRUST CASELOAD BROKEN
DOWN BY DISTRICT Q1 2010-11
4. There are strong fiscal arguments for tackling
the reasons for reoffending , as this cohort of the community
and their families are likely to draw heavily on a wide number
of key public sector providers. Hertfordshire Probation Trust
now breaks down the caseload by district /borough council and
shares this information with key partners to help inform planning.
Strategic information sharing has also brought the probation,
police and council teams together to target the top 200 prolific
offenders under the umbrella of Integrated Offender Management,
with probation offender managers recently co-locating with police
and council staff.
PROLIFIC AND PRIORITY OFFENDERS SUPERVISED
BY HPT Q1 2010-11
5. There is scope to develop a Reducing Reoffending
Board; however care will need to be given to the boundary lines
and avoidance of undue additional bureaucracy. There is the potential
to link this to the role of the forthcoming Police & Crime
Commissioner, but care would need to be given that it was not
dominated by a single agency perspective. Data linked to the pathways
to reduce reoffending needs to become available at district/borough
council level to secure true local buy in, but this can be difficult
for public sector agencies not organised along similar boundaries
an bound by nationally determined IT databases. It is also relevant
to acknowledge the distribution of crime and offenders is far
from even across local councils, which again has impact on what
priority will be given by local partners. There is a lack of clarity
with regard to the governments ambitions to achieve delivery at
the local level, is this at county or district level? It would
be hard to achieve efficiency of scale by commissioning at the
district level. The Probation Trust works hard to arrange its
delivery to maintain a balance between working in partnership
at a county level, whilst maintaining dialogue, engagement at
the local district level, through representation on the Community
Safety Partnerships.
6. Key to payment by results has to be measures
that the provider has sufficient control over to influence. Reoffending
levels can be vulnerable to local policing activity and performance.
In Hertfordshire we saw a clear link to the police increasing
significantly the number of police cells through new build and
capacity to complete arrest and process and the reoffending levels,
our analysis is that shoplifters in Stevenage had an increased
chance of arrest and prosecution as the police increased their
capability. While this is to be commended, as it is important
all offending is brought to account, it had an impact on the reoffending
measures for Hertfordshire. It would be of concern if there was
a perverse incentive to not arrest to meet a payment by result
measure on reducing reoffending. Likewise if policing performance
deteriorates and offenders have less chance of arrest, this could
inadvertently lead some to conclude that reoffending levels have
improved, when it is simply a case of less offenders being caught.
NI 18 RECONVICTION STATISTICS 9 MONTHS TO
DECEMBER 2009
OFFENDERS WITH 1 OR MORE CONVICTIONS DURING
THE 9 MONTH RECORDING PERIOD
What freedoms would probation trusts like to have
to enable them to manage offenders and reduce re-offending more
effectively?
7. Probation Trusts are very well placed to know
local providers and the local leadership of agencies who have
services that can contribute to reoffending. The Trust is represented
on the county Safer Stronger Executive Group, Hertfordshire Criminal
Justice Board and all Community Safety Partnerships. The scope
for joint commissioning with local providers could be increased
considerably if the Trust had the capacity to carry over under
spend for longer term investment. Such a freedom would significantly
increase the opportunity for longer term planning and joint commissioning.
This will also promote value for money and opportunities to achieve
greater efficiency savings to reinvest for improved service delivery.
An example is the work currently taking place within Hertfordshire
with the local third sector. Hertfordshire Probation Trust working
in partnership with Hertfordshire Community Foundation is providing
workshops at no cost to the local third sector community, to increase
their knowledge of the criminal justice processes, in particular
addressing rehabilitation. In the first two workshops 36 different
potential providers sent representatives and there is considerable
enthusiasm and interest to partner and develop local responses
to address needs, such as accommodation and mentoring. The Trust
forward planning however is hampered by having no opportunity
to carry forward and develop opportunities to innovate. Annual
budgets, which are often subject to in year amendments, limit
the opportunities for innovation. Without the facility to carry
forward and develop reserves for long term planning the Trust
is potentially disadvantaged when competing. New initiatives can
often demand high initial investment to support implementation,
before efficiencies can be realised, this is difficult under the
current arrangements.
8. It would be helpful if the Probation Trust
Board could determine the issues to be audited, at present a large
number of audit days are determined and imposed on Trusts by the
national team, the priority of these subjects chosen will vary
from Trust to Trust, who will also wish to take account of other
inspections etc that might have recently taken place, and should
be linked to the Trust strategic risk register. An opportunity
for the board to increase their capacity to determine audit subjects
would be welcomed.
The national directions can range from much needed
strategic guidance to micro management detail about marketing,
ordering leaflets and posters, the latter is unhelpful and can
demand expensive cumbersome business cases/processes for minor
issues that could be able to be resolved and contained at the
local level.
9. Trusts are highly dependent upon the national
IT provision and determination of databases etc. Partnership working
can often be hampered by having to cross reference or double data
enter to "similar but different" databases, making it
difficult to extract analysis at a strategic level and increasing
the potential for information relating to risk to not be passed
over.
10. It is a similar situation with the estates
contract. This is controlled at a national level, with little
control available to Trusts in determining strategic and operational
decisions. This includes reviewing and changing offices, procuring
repairs and maintenance and managing operational costs. The latter
has hampered the need to drive down costs and improve value for
money and capacity to implement our environmental strategy.
The Government proposes a lead provider model
and suggests that commissioning for the delivery and enforcement
of sentences and for efforts to reduce re-offending will not be
separated. What is the appropriate role for probation in such
a model?
11. The Probation Service in England and Wales
is internationally respected, with many countries seeking to replicate
and learn from our approach. There is considerable expertise that
has been built up over many years and the Probation Trusts are
well organised and well placed within the local communities and
with the key criminal justice agencies to coordinate and deliver
the overall sentence plan for convicted offenders. The courts
need to have confidence that court orders will be delivered as
intended and offenders who do not comply brought to account through
the relevant enforcement procedures. There is scope to consider
further the relationship of Probation Trusts with the Policing
and Crime Commissioners. Hertfordshire Probation Trust successfully
completed a rigorous trust application in 2010, providing detailed
evidence of its effectiveness and capability to deliver/commission
services and enforce sentences and engage with the local community.
12. There is scope and opportunity for Trusts
to work together and jointly commission where they identify commonality
and the potential to reduce costs, this can be arranged at the
local level and does not necessarily require national or regional
oversight/coordination, which can sometimes simply increase the
number of managers involved and add additional reporting.
13. Hertfordshire Probation Trust has hosted
a number of visits for local MPs and national leaders and would
be very happy to provide an opportunity to members of the Justice
Select Committee, where they could have an informed conversation
with a cross grade group of staff. If helpful we could also facilitate
involving other local community providers who share our determination
to continually develop and improve the effectiveness of offender
facing services in Hertfordshire. The new MP for Watford Richard
Harrington attended such a visit in the 2010 and we are sure would
be happy to share his experience if that is useful. Our work is
complex and not easily explained in short sound bites but we remain
very committed as a Probation Trust to increasing understanding
about our work.
January 2011
| 
