Written evidence from the Ministry of
Justice (PB 36)
1. Probation as a means of dealing with offenders
had its origins in voluntary activity in the latter part of the
19th century. In 1907, the Probation of Offenders Act established
the probation order as a sentence available to the courts and
gave persons supervising offenders official status as officers
of the court. The Home Office assumed responsibility for the service
in 1938. In 2000, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act
gave the service a new name (the National Probation Service for
England and Wales) and replaced the 54 probation committees with
42 local probation boards. Probation's role has evolved from advising,
assisting and befriending offenders to protecting the public,
reducing re-offending, punishing offenders within the community,
ensuring awareness of the effects of crime on victims, and rehabilitating
offenders. In 2007, the Offender Management Act once again changed
the nature of how probation services would be delivered, by providing
for the creation of Probation Trusts.
2. Following a report by Patrick (now Lord) Carter,
in 2004 the Government announced plans to establish a National
Offender Management Service (NOMS) with the aim of reducing reoffending
through more consistent and effective offender management. It
proposed to introduce commissioning and contestability into the
provision of probation services.
NATIONAL OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT SERVICE
3. NOMS was established in June 2004, but following
the Carter review of Prisons in December 2007, an agency of the
same name was created by merging the Prison Service agency with
the NOMS structures, under a single Chief Executive. Directors
of offender management were appointed in each English region and
Wales to integrate offender services, to commission prison and
probation services and to directly manage public sector prisons.
This move also resulted in reduced costs and leaner structures.
The National Probation Directorate functions were either performed
centrally in NOMS, (for example, Offender Management Policy),
or discontinued, as Probation Trusts were created with more autonomy
(see below).
4. In accordance with government policy, NOMS
pursued a programme of creating Probation Trusts, and by April
2010, following a series of voluntary amalgamations, the 42 local
boards became 35 Probation Trusts. The Trusts are organised around
some 150 Local Delivery Units (LDUs) which are broadly coterminous
with local authorities. LDUs are expected to be empowered, community-based
units with strong links to local policing, local government and
local providers. As a condition of achieving Trust status, probation
boards were required to demonstrate how they would operate these
empowered LDUs. Trusts operate under contract, with Directors
of Offender Management who contract with them on behalf of the
Secretary of State. Providers of probation services need not be
Probation Trusts: the Secretary of State may contract with any
provider, except for the purpose of assisting courts in making
a decision in respect of a person charged with or convicted of
an offence. (At present, such assistance may only be provided
by a public sector body - though not necessarily a Probation Trust.)
CASELOAD, STAFFING
AND FINANCE
5. The main role of the Probation Service is
to supervise offenders over 18 who receive community orders, suspended
sentence orders (SSOs) or custodial sentences of 12 months or
more. It also assists the courts by providing reports on offenders
due for sentence. With other agencies, probation staff also form
part of Youth Offending Teams. The great majority of adults convicted
by the courts are supervised by the Probation Service. On 31 December
2009, 241,500 offenders were under supervision.[12]
In its role of providing assistance to the courts, in 2009 the
Probation Service prepared a total of 218,000 reports on offenders
who were due to be sentenced. Over the last decade both caseload
and staff numbers have increased,[13]
although this upward trend has started to decline, with staff
numbers and budgets reducing in 2009-10 and caseloads staying
largely stable.[14]
6. The initial 2010-11 budget allocation for
delivery of probation services through the 35 Probation Trusts
was £884 million. The June 2010 emergency Budget necessitated
savings of £20 million. At the time of writing, the Spending
Review settlement has not been agreed, but reductions in the cost
of provision of probation services are expected to be in line
with the rest of the public sector.
HOW PERFORMANCE
IS MEASURED
7. The performance of Probation Trusts is measured
in a number of ways, within the Probation Trust Rating System
(PTRS). A set of national key performance indicators (KPIs) is
approved by Ministers, and Trusts negotiate local targets with
Directors of Offender Management. While most KPIs are currently
input-based, we are developing outcome measures which will drive
more local, results oriented services.
8. The PTRS takes account of other measures of
performance, such as audit and inspection results and financial
management. There are also measures which address delivery of
services to the courts. An assessment is produced of each Trust's
overall performance. Performance arrangements are currently under
review as part of the Government's transparency framework. It
is expected that a small number of outcome-based measures, supplemented
by results-based payments, will replace the current approach.
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
9. The latest published results[15]
show that probation met or exceeded all but one of its KPIs, including
its contribution to joint prison and probation indicators.
10. Re-offending is also used as a measure of
performance. The latest local adult reoffending statistics[16]
show that the three-month rate for all offenders on the probation
caseload who were at risk of reoffending during the year 2009-10
was 9.7%. This was a statistically significant decrease of 2.9%
compared with the 2007-08 baseline.
11. Probation Trusts have responsibility for
liaising with local sentencers and agreeing, within national frameworks,
the sentences to be delivered to the courts. Generally, the full
range of requirements is available, and there is a high degree
of concurrence between what practitioners recommend in pre-sentence
reports and what the court orders.[17]
LONGER-TERM
PERFORMANCE TRENDS
12. Since accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes
were introduced in 2001-02, there has been a five-fold increase
in the number of offenders completing such programmes. Over the
same period, the rate of timely enforcement action following breach
of an order increased from 53% to 95%. Between 2005-06 and 2008-09,
there was a 22% increase in Community Payback[18]
completions. The percentage of offenders at the end of their period
of supervision who were in employment rose from 40% in 2007-08
to 45% in 2008-09 and the number in settled accommodation from
72% to 78% over the same period. The average annual level of staff
sickness declined from 12.1 days in 2007-08 to 11.0 in 2008-09.
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
MODEL AND
INTEGRATED OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT
13. Following the 2003 Carter Report, which led
to the establishment of NOMS, it was concluded that a new approach
was needed to improve the management of offenders. The underlying
principle is that offender management should be a single process
spanning the whole of the sentence. Each offender serving a community
sentence, or a prison sentence longer than 12 months, has a single
manager, whose role is to build a relationship with the offender
and be responsible for the sentence plan. Over the same period,
the Offender Assessment System (OASys) has provided a consistent
tool for practitioners to assess offenders' needs and address
their offending behaviour. Developments in recent years include
integrated offender management (IOM), a locally devised and implemented
collaboration between criminal justice agencies, using local data,
including OASys aggregations. Areas that have implemented IOM
have provided positive feedback.
PROCESS AND
CULTURAL CHALLENGES
14. Changes that have been made in recent years
have improved overall performance and the quality of risk assessment
and management. However, one consequence has been an increase
in bureaucracy and over-reliance on processes. There has been
a tendency to focus more on meeting process standards than on
delivering outcomes, such as a reduction in reoffending. There
is clear evidence that the quality of one-to-one engagement is
a significant factor in reducing re-offending. Although standardisation
has brought benefits, there has been less reliance on professional
judgement and discretion—which are essential for effective
work with offenders. NOMS and Trusts are seeking to address this
though the development, with the Probation Service, of an offender
engagement approach. Following discussions with Trusts, there
is clearly a need to improve both the quality and quantity of
time that practitioners spend with offenders. The contributory
factors to unacceptable levels of bureaucracy (many of which relate
to excessive concentration on targets) are being identified and
addressed, as are the cultural and training issues identified
by practitioners. Returning probation to a front-line, profession-led
approach requires the abandonment of target-driven methods, to
give front-line staff and their managers the freedom to exercise
professional judgement, while retaining frameworks of standards,
risk assessment and common methods of working with other criminal
justice agencies.
PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGES
15. The nature of probation work delivers a range
of challenges. In order to deliver court requirements and address
offending behaviour, probation staff often depend on other agencies.
For example, offenders with personality disorders form a significant
proportion of the probation caseload. For some, this is linked
to a high risk of serious harm to others. These offenders have
complex psychological needs that create challenges in terms of
management, treatment and maintaining a safe working environment.
It is recognised that insufficient resource and expertise is directed
towards this group, who require a complex, multi-disciplinary
approach. Another group that creates particular challenges is
offenders with learning difficulties or other conditions which
make engagement with supervision and programmes difficult. While
some adapted programmes are available for offenders with special
needs, provision can be inconsistent and difficult to access,
because of lack of availability of specialist suppliers and funding
constraints.
16. Similarly, alcohol treatment requirements
(ATRs) are used by courts for those offenders who are medically
dependent on alcohol: these are a minority of the offenders with
alcohol problems who are under supervision. Although the number
of ATRs made and completed has increased each year since their
introduction in 2005, there is still a gap between offender need
and treatment availability in some areas and this restricts the
use courts can make of ATRs. While ATRs should be provided by
local health bodies, in practice provision is patchy. In order
to fulfil the requirements of the sentence, some Probation Trusts
have had procure these treatments direct from providers.
17. Similarly, the number of Mental Health Treatment
Requirements given each year has been very low (less than 2% of
those identified as potentially needing treatment), owing to problems
of supply.
18. These issues are being addressed in the context
of the Government's Health and Criminal Justice Plan which is
in the process of final agreement with all parties.
19. Maintaining confidence in the ability of
the Probation Service and its partner agencies is a key challenge.
There remains a risk that a high-profile serious further offence
committed by an offender under supervision could undermine public
confidence in the Probation Service, even where it can be shown
that all reasonable steps were taken to manage the risk of harm
effectively. In addition, if community caseloads were to rise,
pressure on local budgets might mean that offender managers were
not able to see offenders as frequently as they do now. While
that would not necessarily undermine public protection, it might
affect public confidence.
TRAINING
20. New training arrangements have been introduced
into probation. Much probation work is now done by Probation Service
Officers (PSOs), for whom previously there was no formal qualification.
In April 2010, the new Probation Qualifications Framework introduced
a minimum vocational qualification for all PSOs. Within the first
year of appointment new PSOs must now demonstrate their competence
in key areas of their work, including how they assess risk of
harm and support offenders to change. PSOs can also become fully
qualified Probation Officers (POs), without having to leave their
current role to become full-time trainees. This improves the potential
for effective workforce planning and reduces the risk of wasted
investment in newly qualified POs who are not offered a substantive
post. A 15-month Graduate Diploma route to PO qualification for
graduates with a relevant degree has also been introduced. These
measures will improve the training regime, but need to be complemented
by supportive line managers who can promote better assessment
of risk and need, using the principles of offender engagement
referred to at paragraph 0, above.
COMMISSIONING
21. 2010 is the first full year of Trust operation:
Directors of Offender Management, as commissioners, have negotiated
volume targets and budgets with Trusts, in line with the required
deliverables.
22. Commissioning requires analysis of requirements,
definition of deliverables and outcomes, placing of appropriate
contracts and monitoring to ensure the required outcomes are met.
Responsibility for this is shared between: the Ministry of Justice
(where national trends and needs are identified through analysis
of, for example, offender assessment national data); NOMS (where
specifications are prepared for nationally-commissioned services
- for example, approved premises and unpaid work); the regions
(where analysis of local trends is used to adjust national requirements
and set local outcomes); and, at local level, Trusts and their
LDUs (which work with the voluntary sector, the health service,
local authorities and the police to determine the best approach
to services such as IOM and prolific offender management, and
to minority groups, including women offenders).
23. Probation Trusts are currently providers
who often define certain services locally, and sub-contract those
services. As competition develops and a mixed market emerges,
commissioning will be a major driver of change. Over the last
18 months, NOMS has developed specifications and benchmark costs
for probation services, which form a framework for future commissioning.
The commissioning of probation, however, is such a new activity
that comment on its effectiveness would be premature. The Government's
impetus towards more competition, payments by results, community
engagement in determining outcomes, practitioner discretion and
locally-defined services could be achieved within a commissioning
structure with a mandate to effect the required changes and outcomes
at national and local levels. Further proposals will be contained
in the rehabilitation Green Paper.[19]
FUTURE ROLE
OF THE
PRIVATE AND
VOLUNTARY SECTORS
24. An effective commissioning system requires
a strong and diverse provider market. The voluntary and not-for-profit
sectors already provide some services under contract, either to
Probation Trusts, or direct to NOMS. However, their involvement
is limited and that of the private sector even more so. All these
sectors undoubtedly have the capability and the desire to engage.
NOMS is currently concluding the award of a national framework
contract for provision of Community Payback by private sector
providers. This is a first, but significant, step in opening the
market to new entrants. New mechanisms, such as social impact
bonds, are also under consideration.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
25. Restorative justice (RJ) is a widely-used
term covering a range of interventions where an offender makes
some form of reparation, or where the victim has an opportunity
to explain how he or she has been affected by the offence or to
seek an explanation.
26. RJ may be used as an alternative to early
formal intervention, such as a caution, or instead of prosecution.
Victim satisfaction with diversionary RJ is high and there is
some evidence that RJ conferences, as an alternative to prosecution,
can reduce the frequency of re-offending. However, there is no
conclusive evidence that diversionary RJ interventions prevent
re-offending. It seems likely that RJ can help to rehabilitate
some offenders in some circumstances. Community Payback has an
evident restorative component and people in local communities
can nominate—direct to Probation Trusts - projects that
they would like to see undertaken.
HANDLING DIFFERENT
GROUPS OF
OFFENDERS
27. NOMS is committed to ensuring fair treatment
for offenders from all groups. All Probation Trusts have published
Single Equality Schemes, describing how they meet their legal
duties and including action plans setting out how they are working
to address risks and issues around unequal treatment. There is
limited monitoring data on outcomes for different groups of offenders.
NOMS is working with the Probation Chiefs Association and Probation
Trusts to devise a system for collecting comprehensive data to
enable us to address any disproportionality in outcomes.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
28. The Government is committed to a greater
role for the private and voluntary sectors in delivering offender
management services. A Green Paper on rehabilitation reform is
in preparation, which will ensure that all the principles (social
action, public service reform and community empowerment) and techniques
(decentralisation, transparency and access to finance) of the
Big Society are embedded in policy.
29. Probation Trusts and their predecessors have
played a key role within the criminal justice system in helping
to address community safety issues through membership of a wide
range of local statutory and community partnerships. Recently
the importance of this role has increased, with probation becoming
one of the partners responsible for agreeing the relevant targets
in Local Area Agreements and a statutory "responsible authority".
LDUs lead the development of initiatives such as IOM. They form
a strong local delivery unit for the integration of rehabilitative
services which could be developed further.
30. Moving from very short custodial sentences
to a revised form of community punishment is under review as part
of the forthcoming Green Paper. The requirement for custodial
places would decrease, to be rebalanced with an increase in community
punishments for offenders who currently serve very short prison
sentences, which are both ineffective and expensive. To provide
for the delivery of revised community punishments and rehabilitative
activity in a cost-effective and innovative way, we are developing
"payments by results". By linking payments to outcomes,
providers of probation services (both existing and new) will be
incentivised to deliver improved services, while the public will
only pay for what works. Trials of diversionary activity from
custody to community are in progress. They have been supported
by magistrates in the pilot areas, and by the Magistrates Association.
These Intensive Alternatives to Custody trials are running in
seven areas across England and Wales. Early results are encouraging.
National Offender Management Service
September 2010
12 A 38% increase over the same point in 1999. 97,500
had received community orders, 43,600 SSOs and 102,000 custodial
sentences. Back
13
At the end of 2009, there were 20,440 probation staff, of whom
7,649 were Probation Officers (POs) and 5,867 were Probation Support
Officers (PSOs) (see paragraph 20, below). This compares with
a total 10 years previously of 14,671 staff, of whom 7163 were
POs and 2,502 PSOs Back
14 In
the first quarter of 2010, the number of offenders starting supervision
was 3.4% lower than in the same period in 2009: staff numbers
were 5% lower. Back
15
In the NOMS Annual Report 2008-09: see
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/noms-annual-report-08-09.htm
Back
16
Published on 17 August 2010. See http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/local-adult-reoffending.htm.
Local statistics are calculated on a different basis from the
national figures. The differences relate to: the sample of offenders,
the measure of reoffending; time allowed for reoffending; and
the types of sentence for which an offence is counted. Back
17
There are some exceptions (see paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, below). Back
18 Community
Payback is a form of unpaid work. The courts may make it a condition
of a community order or a suspended sentence order. Back
19
See paragraph 28, below. Back
| 
