The role of the Probation Service - Justice Committee Contents


Written evidence from the Probation Chiefs Association (PB 17)

Are probation services currently commissioned in the most appropriate way?

1.  Probation Trusts need a new "strategic commissioning" approach to the delivery of probation services which opens up the potential for new ways of working with a range of public, private and voluntary sector providers.

2.  Current commissioning arrangements, through the Directors of Offender Management (DOM), are too remote from the communities where the services are delivered.

3.  The procurement processes used by the Ministry of Justice/National Offender Management Service (MOJ/NOMS) are unnecessarily bureaucratic. This often results in potentially suitable and locally accountable providers excluding themselves from tendering exercises and the usual "Prime Providers" taking the available resource.

4.  Probation Trusts have the business skills to commission offender services. They have established links with the local communities and operate with sensitivity to local issues. Crucially, Probation Trusts have the advantage of highly developed relationships with local Magistrates and Judges. Probation Trusts are Responsible Authorities on the Community Safety Partnerships, increasingly commissioning through joint and co-commissioning initiatives with local strategic partners.

5.  Probation Trusts are the most appropriate local commissioners of probation services, and should be more centrally involved in the commissioning of the whole range of offender interventions required to protect the public and rehabilitate the offender. It is important that Probation Trusts take primary responsibility within communities for offender management.

PCA Recommendation 1: Improve and consolidate local joint and co-commissioning arrangements by reducing centrally-driven procurement of services.

PCA Recommendation 2: Develop Probation Trusts role within local joint and co-commissioning arrangements as a responsible authority for offender interventions.

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?

6.  The new governance arrangements for Probation Trusts provide the potential for greater autonomy and therefore greater flexibility to meet local needs. It is not clear that these issues of governance are fully understood or appreciated yet by NOMS.

7.  Some of the barriers to developing the full potential of Probation Trusts are:

—  over-regulation and lack of proper autonomy;

—  having severely limited freedom to control finances (for example, no year-end flexibility); and

—  having severely limited freedom to design and control the regime within which offenders are managed.

8.  Probation Trusts, in recent years have already achieved substantial efficiencies. However, some of the processes informing these efficiencies (for example the Specification Benchmarking and Costing Programme) need to take more account of the effectiveness of services delivered.

9.  There are some unanticipated consequences of becoming Trusts, for example an increase in bureaucracy, monitoring, and financial controls and having to commit resources to manage VAT and Corporation Tax.

PCA Recommendation 3: Realise the potential of Probation Trusts by increasing their autonomy and streamlining central controls.

10.  Whilst the Offender Management (OM) model is clearly articulated in the national documentation, the emphasis at present can appear to be on an administrative approach with the focus on outputs rather than outcomes. The emphasis should be on the direct addressing of offending behaviour to achieve desistance from offending and the protection of the public. The "management" of an offender through the different requirements of the sentence is a corollary to this work.

11.  Within the OM framework there are currently a range of accredited programmes delivered by Probation Trusts which the most recent research evidence from the MOJ shows are successful in reducing reoffending.

12.  In order for Probation Trusts to work effectively with offenders within the OM model they need to have greater professional flexibility within a less regulated performance management framework and a reduced emphasis on process targets. It is also crucial that work with offenders is predicated on evidence based practice and a demonstrable link to reducing re-offending.

PCA Recommendation 4: Build on the existing Offender Management Model through an emphasis on direct offender supervision as the means of protecting the public through rehabilitation of the offender.

Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences? How effectively are these requirements being delivered?

13.  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for a range of additional requirements to be included in Community Orders, many of which are not delivered by Probation Trusts. Most of these can be utilised fully by sentencers but there are the following constraints:

—  some Probation Trusts have no or only partial access to Senior Attendance Centre provision;

—  some Probation Trusts are unable in all or part of their areas to offer requirements in relation to Health Service delivered interventions of Mental Health Treatment or Alcohol Treatment;

—  there is still variance in the use by courts of electronic monitored curfews;

—  the provision of accredited programmes is currently driven by targets set by the DOMs, not by need as assessed by Courts and Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) writers; and

—  the increases in offenders who need interpreters has resulted in limited access to some provision such as accredited programmes and Community Payback.

14.  Probation Trusts have been increasingly able to provide sentencers with a wide range of Specified Activity Requirements to address the needs of specific groups, for example, women offenders, and specific issues such as lower level alcohol misuse, debt and money management, compliance, and parenting skills.

15.  In 2009-10 the Probation Service nationally delivered its best ever set of performance results. These demonstrate that increasingly the whole range of interventions delivered under community orders are completed successfully. This has been driven by volume targets which sometimes get in the way of delivering interventions based more specifically on needs in the OASys assessments.

16.  Where offenders fail to comply, orders are rigorously enforced; a process which has been transformed over the last ten years. Probation staff have developed approaches which are designed to achieve compliance rather than enforcement per se. These include a more thorough exploration with individuals at induction of factors which might inhibit compliance like employment, or care responsibilities.

17.  Whilst there is still some scope to ensure that all the requirements in a Community Order are available and fully utilised nationally, when requirements are made sentencers can have confidence that they will be delivered as expected and rigorously enforced.

18.  A critical issue is public confidence and research evidence (MORI) shows that public confidence in the use of community penalties goes up the more the public know about them. There would also be benefits to developing ways of providing feedback to sentencers on the progress of orders which would promote confidence in community sentences.

PCA Recommendation 5: Allow Probation Trusts to focus more on meeting criminogenic needs that are identified in court reports rather than meeting regionally commissioned sentencing targets.

PCA Recommendation 6: Establish procedures for providing increased levels of feedback to sentencers on the progress of orders.

PCA Recommendation 7: Increase the provision of information about community sentences to the public and other stakeholders.

What role should the private and voluntary sectors play in the delivery of probation services?

19.  Probation Trusts already work closely with a wide range of agencies in both sectors and would welcome the opportunity to extend this. The commissioning and oversight of probation services, including offender management, require the unique blend of professional skills, knowledge and experience which Probation staff bring to the sector making Trusts ideal brokers to undertake this role.

20.   The strength of the third (or voluntary) sector is in its values, its local connections, its capacity to attract additional resources and to present a positive image of work with offenders. The voluntary sector's strengths include linking offenders through positive engagement, like community payback and restorative justice schemes, with local communities, as well as improving employment and leisure opportunities for offenders.

21.  In respect of the private sector Probation Trusts already have examples of creative contracts providing, for example, offender mentoring services, staffing cover and supplementing report writing. The private sector also provides employment opportunities to offenders. The private sector can also contribute to "back office" functions and to driving the role of technology in delivering effective supervision and reducing the cost of support services. There is also potential for the private sector in the skills development aspect of Unpaid Work/Community Payback. Probation Trusts could themselves create "social enterprises" or "arms length" companies to deliver traditional public service programmes for offenders.

PCA Recommendation 8: Build on Probation Trusts current joint working arrangements with the private and third sector by developing their role within local joint and co-commissioning arrangements as a responsible authority for offender interventions.

Does the probation service have the capacity to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?

22.  Annually some 32,000 individuals are sent to prison for periods of up to and including three months from the Magistrates' Court (2008). There is currently no capacity in Probation Trusts to take on the work of supervising a sizeable proportion of these offenders in the community without a number of radical actions and alternatives to the way in which resources are currently deployed. There would need to be action in respect of:

—  demand management;

—  resource transfer;

—  releasing capacity through a lifting of unnecessary process requirements; and

—  greater reliance on professional discretion.

There is enormous potential and substantial cost saving for the Government in this area. However, there are prolific offenders in that population, some very dangerous, and Probation Trusts will need to be involved in the risk assessment and allocation of support to this group.

23.  On the issue of demand management, capacity would be created if there was use made of diversion from probation caseloads of lower risk level offenders through Police/Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) action and the use of alternatives to prosecution and greater use of fine/conditional discharges. There could also be diversion via Problem Solving Courts to the voluntary sector. The use of shorter orders, including stand alone Specified Activities, and an increase in the use of other requirements (eg Exclusion, Prohibited Activities) would target resources more efficiently.

24.  The issue of resource transfer would need to be addressed: specifically there would need to be a transfer of resources from custody to community as well as from the centre to Probation Trusts. Resource transfer from the female custodial estate to the community would also allow for the prioritising of sustainable services for women offenders.

25.  The transfer of budgets; alcohol, drugs, ETE and accommodation to Trusts would allow them to commission local partners to target more effectively the most excluded offenders at the local level.

26.  Finally, there is the potential for releasing capacity through increased use of professional discretion in relation to National Standards of supervision and meeting process targets. There is an urgent need to release highly trained and professionally qualified staff from process monitoring in order to focus on the direct supervision of and engagement with offenders.

PCA Recommendation 9: Free up Probation Trusts' capacity by streamlining and reducing centrally-driven monitoring arrangements.

PCA Recommendation 10: Enable Probation Trusts' capacity by increasing the ability for Probation staff to use professional discretion in the allocation of operational resources.

PCA Recommendation 11: In the case of short-term prison sentences, give consideration to the transfer of resources from the custodial to the community (Probation Trusts) in order to create capacity.

Could probation trusts make more use of restorative justice?

27.  There are already innovative examples of restorative justice (RJ) being used in Probation Trusts. These include conferencing, RJ as a specified activity requirement in a community sentence, or as an element within an Intensive Alternatives to Custody programme or Integrated Offender Management. Judges and magistrates have signalled their support for these options.

28.  Community payback already has a clear restorative element (visible payback to the community) which is highly valued by local communities. The restorative elements within community payback could be strengthened.

29.  There is clearly scope for increasing the use of RJ and, given the high value victims place on it and the impact it can have on offenders, it could be established as a core option in sentencing. This could be part of a broader RJ framework that allows all personal crime victims to opt into a RJ process at different stages in the offender/victim journey. Victims could have an entitlement for an RJ approach to be investigated if they want the option pursued.

PCA Recommendation 12: Make Restorative Justice an entitlement for victims in cases in which they have expressed a preference for it.

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?

Women Offenders

30.  Probation Officers are skilled in identifying the complex needs which women offenders have (mental health, substance misuse, histories of abuse) and engaging with women to provide interventions which will divert them from custody and crime. Probation staff are able to apply National Standards whilst remaining responsive to specific needs like working patterns, childcare, and health appointments.

31.  Probation Trusts work with the Women's Community Projects (WCPs) which provide "wrap-around" services for women offenders and those women at risk of crime. In the WCPs supervision takes place in a safe, women-only environment with access to "one-stop shop" facilities.

32.  With increasing numbers of women being diverted from custody and the female caseload increasing the ability to continue to make services, accessible, sensitive and appropriate to need is likely to become more difficult.

PCA recommendation 13: Increase the capacity of Probation's current work with Women's Community Projects in order to meet the needs of the rising numbers of women offenders.

Young adult offenders

33.  The Probation Service has demonstrated an effective approach to working with young adults who offend, both in managing Community Sentences and Custodial licences. Youth Offending Services and Probation Trusts have established practices for managing the transition from youth-based Community Justice provision to adult provision. The transition to young adulthood is crucial; a time typified by the tailing away of traditional youth service provision.

34.  A third of those subject to Community Orders managed by Probation Trusts with bespoke requirements are reconvicted within a year compared to 60% of those who serve a prison sentence of less than 12 months. The Probation Service has demonstrated that well-managed Community sentences are more likely to be effective and act to prevent the "revolving door" for young adults in custody.

35.  Local initiatives within Probation Trusts, such as Integrated Offender Management projects have Probation, Police and Local Authority combining services in targeting specific risk factors.

PCA recommendation 14: Develop a sector-wide approach to commissioning services to meet the special needs of transition to young adulthood.

Black and minority ethnic offenders

36.  The Probation Service has an outstanding track record for employing Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff who reflect local communities and for being able to demonstrate that all offenders should be able to have confidence in the services that are offered. Where Probation Trusts are working with a high concentration of BME offenders it has been possible to provide specific programmes for BME offenders which also addressed issues of identity, history, culture, experience and opportunity.

37.  Probation Trusts ensure that BME offenders do not find themselves as isolated members of predominantly white groups of offenders, including on community payback groups. In some areas local contracts or partnership arrangements have ensured community provision has been developed for BME offenders or members of specific communities.

38.  All Trusts provide access to registered interpreters, and set expectations of providers of offender services within contracts. Probation has a long history of seeking to identify and drive down disproportionality or prejudicial treatment, with rigorous monitoring of the quality of reports and the outcomes from proposals in court reports. Increasingly offender surveys and user groups are being developed to receive and act on feedback from offenders, including those from BME communities.

PCA Recommendation 15: Increase the use of offender surveys and user groups to receive and act on feedback from offenders, including those from BME communities.

High risk offenders

39.  The Probation Service has made significant strides in managing medium and high risk offenders effectively, through the development and professional application of robust assessment tools, which make sure offenders who present the highest risk of harm are tightly managed and resources prioritised, through the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Offenders who are assessed as less harmful but commit high volume crime are also managed on a multi agency basis as Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPOs). Through these arrangements information is shared and resources pooled across key agencies to ensure agencies achieve the greatest impact in reducing crime and protecting the public.

40.   Approved premises also provide a valuable mechanism for containing very high risk particularly in relation to dangerousness, sex offenders and more recently some terrorism offenders.

41.  This multi agency approach is internationally recognised as an effective way of managing risk. Both MAPPA and the PPO scheme make sure that greatest weight of offender management techniques are brought to bear on those offenders in the community that demonstrate the capacity to cause the greatest harm. Assessment is kept under regular review to spot escalation from medium risk offenders and move up the intensity of supervision or in reverse to recognise progress and concentrate resource where it is most needed. Working in partnership with the police, prisons and local authority and health partners has become a key ingredient to effective practice and is currently informing the development of Integrated Offender Management.

PCA Recommendation 16: Promote public and stakeholder understanding of multi-agency approaches to public protection and risk management work.

Is the provision of training adequate?

Qualifying Training

42.  The new Probation Qualifying Framework (PQF) was introduced in April this year (replacing the Diploma in Probation Studies which ran from 1998-2010) and has the support of Probation Trusts.

43.  However, because of reductions in recruitment due to the recent budget cuts the new qualification will be slow to start; the new qualification also has a long delivery time. Combined, these factors have the potential of creating a gap in qualified Probation Officers which could become acute by 2012, creating a potential risk to public protection practice. This needs careful monitoring to ensure Trusts retain the levels of skilled staff required.

PCA Recommendation 17: Establish a national body to oversee the implementation and continuous development of the Probation Qualifying Framework (PQF).

Post Qualifying and In-house Training

44.  There are no formal post qualifying arrangements for Probation practitioners, which is a significant gap in their continuous professional development, although all Probation Trusts have training programmes. Much of Trust training time has however been taken up by preparing staff to implement new Government initiatives. The recent Criminal Justice Joint Inspection recommended that there be better training for staff working with high risk sexual offenders.

45.  Training for staff to deliver accredited offending behaviour programmes is comprehensive, but there is a long lead time which can cause significant workforce planning difficulties.

PCA Recommendation 18: Agree a framework of recognised national qualifications for certificating the continuous professional development of probation practitioners.

Leadership and Management Development

46.  There has been no consistent development needs analysis of senior managers even whilst Probation was a national organisation resulting in variable provision for both Chief Executives and their senior managers. A number of Trusts and Regions have invested their own scarce resources in their own senior or middle manager programmes. This is not funded as part of their contract. In our view a proportionate level of NOMS' resources for leadership development should be allocated to Trusts.

47.  Senior managers in Probation Trusts manage a complex system of partnerships with enhanced scrutiny of a public protection role, which is highly visible and volatile. The development of joint training opportunities with their peers in community organisations is required if local commissioning is to be successful.

48.  More attention needs to be paid to succession planning and the development of new senior managers for the future. There has also been a lack of access by Probation managers to critical posts in NOMS.

PCA Recommendation 19: Establish a leadership development and succession planning framework within the Probation Service.

September 2010


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 27 July 2011