Written evidence from Napo (PB 05)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Probation Service, which was established
in 1907, has a number of core aims which have the dual objectives
of the rehabilitation and integration of offenders into the community.
The service developed rapidly following legislative changes in
1948 and now has a number of core tasks. These core tasks are:
Court Reports
1.2 The Probation Service provides impartial,
accurate, reliable, skilled and professional advice to assist
the courts in making their decisions. Information is provided
in writing and verbally and offers alternatives to custody wherever
this is assessed as appropriate. As at 31 December 2009, the latest
available figures show the Probation Service wrote 218,000 court
reports, compared with 189,600 reports in 2005.
Supervision in the community
1.3 The Probation Service provides supervision
in the community under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
As at 31 December 2009 the total probation caseload was 241,500
with 141,000 of these court orders and the remainder pre and post
custody supervision. Of the court orders 50% had one requirement
attached and 35% had two. The total caseload is just over double
what it was in 1997.
Hostels/Approved premises
1.4 The Probation Service currently operates
104 hostels, or approved premises as they are now known, with
about 2,500 places, primarily for people on parole. Over half
are convicted sex offenders. The remainder will almost certainly
pose some risk to the public, probably through violence. During
the last 18 months 40 of 80 offenders convicted under the Terrorist
Acts have been placed in hostels. It is essential that hostels
are resourced by experienced and trained staff in order to minimise
risk to the public.
Enforcement
1.5 The Probation Service is responsible for
enforcing conditions for the 241,500 people it has on community
orders or parole. This involves taking people back to court if
they fail to comply with the conditions. Up to 30% of those on
orders are taken back to court for resentencing or recalled to
prison because of a breach.
1.6 Between 2000 and 2005 the number of recalls
to prison increased fourfold from 2,457 to 9,696. The number of
recalls to prison between 2005 and 2008-09 rose further to 14,669.
Unpaid Work
1.7 Unpaid Work, formerly known as community
service, was established in 1976. It was originally intended to
be demanding either physically or emotionally and intellectually
tasking, of benefit to the community and if possible to be fulfilling
for the offender. Now Unpaid Work is much more about visible punishment
although it retains the ability to assist with rehabilitation.
The most recent figures show that around 55,000 people per annum
are sentenced to Unpaid Work and completed approximately 4.6 million
hours of work.
Other core tasks
1.8 Assessment: to provide assessments
of people who have committed offences. The assessments include:
factors that are likely to contribute to the reduction of offending;
their needs; the risk of harm to others; and the risk of re-offending.
To produce detailed supervision plans which explain how the risk
of re-offending will be tackled. These assessments are provided
for, amongst others, the courts, the Parole Board and the Prison
Service. The assessments are based on the professional skills
of staff.
1.9 Work with Offenders (through the prison
gates): to work with the Prison Service to provide an end-to-end
service for all prisoners; to ensure the implementation of legislative
requirements affecting supervision on licence following release;
to supervise those persons released from custody who are subject
to statutory licence requiring supervision; to assist in the rehabilitation
and resettlement into the community of prisoners sentenced to
over 12 months following release from prison and all those released
on licence, with the aim of reducing re-offending.
1.10 Inter-agency work: to work with other
agencies, in particular the police, the Crown Prosecution Service,
the Parole Board, prisons and the voluntary sector to develop
strategies for community safety and rehabilitation, which reintegrate
into the community people who have committed offences.
1.11 Partnerships: to "manage"
orders and licences and broker arrangements for supplementary
support arrangements with other agencies. To work in partnerships
with agencies in the voluntary, not for profit and private sectors
which complement and add value to the work of the Probation Service.
Partnerships should recognise a variety of organisations engaged
with statutory agencies relating to differing local needs.
1.12 Victims: to consult and notify victims
about the release arrangements of all those serving imprisonment
for a sexual or violent offence. Victims have a right to be consulted
and to be involved in all key stages of a sentence including applications
for parole, temporary release or a move to a lower security establishment.
This work is integral to the Probation Service's public protection
work and has a vital impact on offence focussed work with a prisoner
as well as providing protection, via additional licence conditions,
where necessary for a victim.
1.13 Public protection work: to develop
strategies with other government departments, particularly the
prisons, police and mental health agencies, which contribute to
enhanced public safety; to provide regular risk assessments in
respect of those who pose the highest level of risk as part of
the multi-agency public protection arrangements.
1.14 Programme interventions: to deliver
and manage structured accredited group programmes within the context
of community orders and for those released from prison. Currently
approximately 23,000 people commence programmes each year.
2. SENTENCING
2.1 Of offenders sentenced to community orders
during 2009, 33% were for other summary offences, 20% were for
theft and handling, 15% were for motoring offences, 11% were indictable
offences, 9% were for violence against the person, and 5% were
for fraud.
3. STAFFING LEVELS
3.1 The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
published a report, Prison and probation expenditure 1999-2009,
in spring 2010.1 It showed that the number of persons
under probation supervision increased by 39% during the period.
At the end of 1998 the number of persons recorded as employed
by the Probation Service was 14,660. By 2008 this had increased
to 21,140. The number of staff increased particularly between
2001 and 2006 but after that date there has been a fall in operational
and frontline staff. As a result the number of operational frontline
staff in 2008-09 was lower than it was in 2003. The number of
probation officers grew by 19.6% during the period to 2006, whilst
the number of support staff grew by 21.8% and the number of senior
managers by 78.5%.
4. BUDGETS
4.1 The Labour administration has claimed that
between 1997 and 2007 there was a 70% increase in probation expenditure.
Napo does not contest this but argues that there is no evidence
of any substantial increase in frontline expenditure. Indeed in
the past 10 years the Probation Service has been restructured
three times. The creation of the National Probation Service in
2001 and the introduction of NOMS three years later and its restructuring
in 2008 have resulted in different models for delivering probation
services.
4.2 The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
report concludes: "It is unsurprising that financial information
given about the Probation Service over the past decade does not
amount to a series where direct comparisons can be made between
all the years".
4.3 It added: "Despite the limitations in
the financial information about probation during this period there
is no doubt that probation expenditure significantly increased
in the past decade".
4.4 The CCJS estimates that the probation budget
in 1998-99 was £431 million and had reached £897 million
by 2008-09, an increase they believe of 60% in real terms. They
note that the creation of NOMS, which merged prison and probation
resources at the centre, means that from 2004 onwards it is not
possible to accurately account for prison and probation expenditure
independently.
4.5 The National Audit Office concluded, in 2008,
that better data on capacity and costs would help the Probation
Service demonstrate value for money in the management of community
orders. It added two years later: "We have not been able
to determine the full value of the waste and inefficiencies associated
with the failure of the C-NOMIS project with certainty because
of NOMS" poor recording of costs".
4.6 Despite the difficulties it is now clear
that since 2008-09 the probation budget has decreased. In a letter
from Crispin Blunt, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, to
Kerry McCarthy MP, dated 13 July 2001,2 he notes that
the probation budget was reduced in 2009-10 by 2.2%. He says that
in 2010-11 Probation Trusts had been asked to make savings of
4.9% and since the election in May 2010 the service has been asked
to reduce its budget by a further £20 million.
4.7 A letter from Ann Beasley, Director of Finance
at the Ministry of Justice, to departmental heads in August 20103
notes that the overall Ministry of Justice budget must be reduced
from £9 billion to £7 billion over the next two financial
years. This means a cut to the probation budget of at least 25%
from its baseline of £894 million at 31 March 2009.
4.8 If implemented this would mean that the number
of probation personnel would fall from the current 20,000 to 15,000.
It would therefore in Napo's view be impossible for the service
to continue to perform its core tasks, outlined earlier in this
report. It is highly likely in Napo's view that the behaviour
of court report writers will change and that this will have an
impact on the behaviour of sentencers. Napo believes that there
is bound therefore to be a reduction in the size of the probation
caseload at the expense of short-term custodial sentences. For
example, if at the end of the period 35,000 persons were displaced
into custody, serving an average of two months each, this would
result in an increase in the prison population of just under 6,000.
The government would therefore need to consider building between
five and four new jails.
5. CONTACT TIME
5.1 During the past decade there has been a significant
increase in the demands on probation staff's time to complete
bureaucratic and administrative tasks. These include OASys assessments
and the filing of information about caseloads with the National
Offender Management Service. Staff have complained for some time
that the amount of contact time that they have with offenders
has fallen dramatically. This was confirmed in a "restricted"
management document entitled Objective 11—Offender Management
Direct Contact Survey of Probation Boards and Probation Trusts—December
2008 (Ministry of Justice).4 This report found that
the amount of time probation staff spend in direct contact with
offenders whether face to face or on the phone was just 24%. Of
the remainder, 41% of time was spent engaged in computer activity
and 35% in non-computer activity for example drafting correspondence
and reports, meetings and other administration. The survey found
that, increasingly, the main issue of bureaucracy and red tape
refers to OASys and the amount of time spent on non computer work.
One probation officer interviewed as part of the survey said "the
impression I have is that for every 15 minutes I spend engaged
in face to face contact with offenders I spend another 15-30 minutes
recording it". Another added "a lot of my time is spent
on case administration due to lack of support staff" and
a third interviewee said "I have been told to spend about
15 minutes with Tier 2 cases and no more than 30 minutes".
5.2 Napo's report Probation in Context—the
murders of Gabriel Ferez and Laurent Bonomo,5 published
in April 2009, found that the officer supervising Daniel Sonnex,
who was in her first qualifying year, had 127 cases. She was spending
on average 15 minutes each with the persons in her care. It was
not uncommon for other staff who were dealing with medium and
high risk cases in the London Borough of Lewisham to have in excess
of 60 individuals each on supervision. If the 25% cut goes ahead
as expected then the caseload of Sonnex's supervisor could increase
further. Clearly in Napo's view it is impossible to give any meaningful
supervision to anybody under those conditions.
6. CUTBACKS SO
FAR
6.1 Napo has obtained information from a number
of probation areas about the likely impact of cuts on jobs during
2010-11. It is unlikely that the full extent will be known until
after the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review on
21 October 2010, however the information available so far is as
follows:
6.2 Avon and Somerset—So far the
Trust has approved voluntary redundancies from 19 people, most
of whom have got substantial experience. There are now not many
staff left over the age of 55 and therefore close to retirement.
This will clearly have an impact on service delivery.
6.3 Cumbria—The service has lost
15 staff since April 2009. The Trust also has a policy of shutting
offices and these will be reduced from seven to four across the
county during 2010-11. It is hoped that this will avoid further
redundancies during the current financial year.
6.4 Durham/Tees Valley—Staff have
been asked to express an interest in voluntary redundancy, extended
career breaks or reducing the number of hours they work. The Trust
estimates that it needs to reduce its workforce from 516 to 454
by the beginning of the financial year 2012. So far 24 staff have
been identified for voluntary redundancy or retirement.
6.5 Humberside—During the last round
of redundancies 37 staff went. The Trust anticipates losing another
five staff during the current financial year. The Trust has to
make another £356,000 savings in 2010-11. Two-thirds of that
will be made by a continued recruitment freeze the rest will come
from decommissioning IT equipment and renegotiating contracts
with partners.
6.6 Lancashire—Since April 2009,
26 staff have been made voluntarily redundant and a further 35
have retired or taken flexible retirement resulting in 46 job
losses and 21 vacancies.
6.7 Leicestershire & Rutlands—There
has been a recruitment freeze in operation since the start of
this financial year and posts are only filled if thought essential
and from existing staff numbers.
The area is expecting to lose 44 frontline posts
by the end of 2010-11 from a total workforce of around 550. It
is hoped that 24 of these will go through natural wastage and
20 through voluntary redundancy. As yet, there are no plans for
compulsory redundancies. In addition the area has over 20 staff
on temporary contracts; all staff taken on in the past 18 months
have been on temporary contracts and trainees qualifying this
year are to be offered 6 month temporary contracts
6.8 London—No concrete information
is expected until mid-September, but the service is looking to
reduce the number of senior probation officers by 17.5 through
invitations for voluntary redundancy.
6.9 Northumbria—The number of posts
left vacant as of March 2010 was 36. There have been 11 voluntary
and one compulsory redundancies in 2009-10. Information for 2010-11
is not yet totally available.
6.10 Merseyside—The Trust anticipates
losing 65 full-time equivalent posts during 2010-11. All staff
have been written to asking them to consider voluntary redundancy
or flexible retirement. So far 33 people have agreed to voluntary
redundancy and 17 posts are vacant. It is thought that a further
40 job losses will occur during 2011-12.
6.11 South Yorkshire—Again the information
is patchy. The figures for voluntary redundancies have not been
given thus far to staff, although it is thought that around 30
vacancies have not been filled because of financial restraints.
The Trust is however expected to have to make further savings
of a minimum of 6% during 2011-12. Overall the unions in South
Yorkshire believe the Trust has lost a hundred posts since the
beginning of the financial year 2008-09 through voluntary redundancies,
restructuring or holding vacancies.
6.12 Wales—The best estimate
is that the number of job losses across Wales in 2009-10 was 55.8
full-time equivalents. The situation in Wales is more complicated
because of the additional funding secured by the Director of Offender
Management through devolution which will create some additional
frontline posts.
6.13 Warwickshire—The Trust is currently
leaving posts vacant and staff have recently been asked to consider
flexible working such as reducing their hours if they are approaching
retirement age or on return from maternity leave, changing working
patterns and taking unpaid career breaks.
6.14 Clearly further information will become
available during the coming months and this will be made available
to the Justice Select Committee once the detail has been worked
through.
7. PARTICULAR
AREAS OF
CONCERN FOR
THE COMMITEE
Are probation services commissioned in an appropriate
way?
7.1 Probation Trusts were created in April 2010.
Their role is to provide and commission offender services. Napo
believes a number of core services should remain statutory responsibilities.
These would include all forms of supervision, court report writing,
multi-agency public protection work and victim liaison. Probation
areas have been providing those areas effectively, in Napo's view,
for the last hundred years.
7.2 Currently the Probation Service is supervising
241,500 persons either on community supervision or post or pre
release from prison. Large scale cuts to budgets however would
jeopardise service delivery in all functions outlined above. Indeed
any large scale contraction in the Probation Service is likely
to see a reciprocal rise in the prison population. Changes in
the bahaviour of sentencers and court report writers could involve
an additional major expenditure for the prison service.
7.3 The Probation Service has a long tradition
of working with the voluntary sector in the delivery of offender
services. Historically that has been a fixed proportion of budget
but this has been reduced or even abolished in harsher economic
climates. Napo does believe it is appropriate for Trusts to commission
certain non-core tasks from the voluntary and other sectors, including
work on literacy and numeracy, employment opportunities, non-approved
premises accommodation and drug and alcohol services. All these
functions are complementary to the core work of supervision and
clearly aid rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending.
Napo strongly believes that Trusts should not be forced by government
to compete for their own work with the private and other sectors.
Indeed the supervision of offenders does not lie easily with the
ordinary laws of supply and demand. Both the Home Office and the
Ministry of Justice have clearly experienced the difficulties
in creating such markets, as the National Audit Office has pointed
out Indeed on occasion they have created pseudo-markets, declaring
themselves as a purchaser of services, although with little success.
7.4 So far there is no overwhelming evidence
of success, whether defined in terms of efficiency, economy or
effectiveness, when probation services have been contracted out.
Facilities management
7.5 Three years ago the Probation Service 's
facilities management service was let to the private sector by
the Home Office. The contract was for the maintenance, cleaning
and refurbishment of the probation estate. On three occasions
subsequently Napo has highlighted to the Ministry and the public
serious concerns about and flaws in the contract. Broadly these
concerns are that contractors have to travel huge distances to
complete small jobs and for larger operations there are serious
delays, which frustrate staff and often put them at risk. Despite
raising these concerns on three occasions, so far no action has
been taken. Some of the examples provided by Napo have bordered
on the absurd. For example, two carpenters travelled from Birmingham
to North Wales to look at a cupboard, only to confirm that it
needed a new door and then go away without fixing it. A painter
travelled from Manchester to South Wales to carry out work; he
bought the paint at B&Q when he got there, discovered it was
too late to start the job, stayed overnight and did the work the
next morning. On another occasion a plumber traveled from Birmingham
to Norwich to mend a toilet seat.
7.6 This is clearly inefficient and wasteful,
however more detailed jobs such as fixing security alarms, lifts
and leaks, have often gone months before being attended to. It
appears the more expensive the job the longer the delay.
Bail beds—ClearSprings
7.7 In the spring of 2007 the prison population
had reached another all time high. The government of the day decided
to try and reduce the remand population by transferring prisoners
thus held into relevant accommodation in the community. A tender
operation was put in place. Although a number of voluntary sector
organizations with the relevant experience tendered, their bids
were deemed too high and the contract was awarded to a private
company, ClearSprings. As far as Napo is aware this was a company
based in Essex who ran caravan sites. It did not appear to have
any direct experience of working with offenders. The company obtained
rented property, mainly in the cities, and created four and five
bed units. Napo understood at the time that this was to avoid
lengthy planning applications. There did not appear to be any
liaison with the police, probation or even the local authority.
Soon the Ministry was inundated with complaints, many from Members
of Parliament. The principal complaints were that the bailees
were not supervised properly, that there was evidence of anti
social behaviour, drinking and drug taking and threats to neighbours.
Eventually in the spring of 2010 the contract was taken away from
ClearSprings and given to Stonham Housing, who do have experience
over a long period of time of working with offenders.
Electronic tagging
7.8 Although technologically tagging has vastly
improved from the early days when there were numerous mistakes,
there is still no evidence that it does anything to reduce reoffending.
Freestanding tagging orders are now quite rare. If tagging is
used in the community it is normally accompanied by some form
of supervision. Tagging is also being used as part of the Home
Detention Curfew which is a form of early release from prison
to ease overcrowding. Napo argued at the time that rather than
the additional expense of the tag, the Home Office could merely
have extended the period of licence or parole.
Current situation
7.9 At the moment some Probation Trusts have
been ordered by their Director of Offender Management (Regional
Manager) to put out to tender Unpaid Work (Community Service as
it was known) or approved premises (hostels as they used to be
known). Napo believes that Unpaid Work does not lend itself easily
to competition. Placements for offenders must not replace paid
employment; the workforce, that is offenders, are not well motivated
and often have problems with drugs, alcohol and lack of organisation
and structure in their lives and, Increasingly, staff who supervise
placements have minimal or no training at all.
7.10 About a third of placements are for individuals,
including working with disabled children and in charity shops.
These are successful but, again, would not survive in an atmosphere
of profit making and competition. It is likely under a privatised
scheme that the groups would become larger and increasingly difficult
to supervise.
7.11 There are a hundred hostels, or approved
premises as they are now known, in England and Wales, housing
about 2,500 people predominantly on licence. Fifteen years ago
hostels were used for bailees but increasingly they have become
used as accommodation for the most dangerous persons released
from custody. Currently half the residents are sex offenders and
the rest are a mix of people convicted of violent offences, and
therefore known to MAPPA, and, increasingly, persons convicted
under the Terrorist Acts. Napo believes it is essential that hostels
are regularly monitored by the Probation Service and that supervision
does not diminish. In any event, given the nature of the resident
population, the commercial risks would be extraordinarily high.
How effectively are Probation Trusts operating
in practice?
7.12 It is too early to determine whether Trusts
are working effectively in practice as they have only been in
existence for approximately four months. However what is crucial
is that Trusts are left free from bureaucracy to determine, within
a national framework, what their priorities are locally. Napo
does not believe they need layers of bureaucracy to line manage
and control them.
7.13 Napo believes that the structure above Trusts,
that is NOMS and DOMs, has failed to deliver effective offender
management, or probation supervision as it used to be called,
and that it has become overly bureaucratic, controlling and centralised.
The decision to merge prisons and probation in 2008 was in Napo's
view a disaster. The relationship between prisons and prisoners
and prisons management and staff is based on command control and
instructions; in contrast the relationship between the Probation
Service and offenders and probation management and staff is based
on negotiation and problem resolution. The two approaches are
quite distinct and in Napo's view impossible to reconcile.
7.14 The NOMS set-up therefore was, in the union's
view, flawed from the beginning. In Napo's opinion the last two
years of the merged organisation have been disfunctional and probation's
identity and presence has been further eroded as each week has
passed. This is hindering the ability of the Probation Service
to achieve its fundamental aims and is therefore undermining the
role of the Trusts. In Napo's view there is an overwhelming case
for the creation of separate operational arms for both the prisons
and probation services, each with its own director and minimum
bureaucracy. Napo is convinced that this would have two beneficial
results; it would cost less and it would improve outcomes.
What is the role of the Probation Service in delivering
offender management and how does it operate in practice?
7.15 Napo believes that the concept of end-to-end
management of offenders is one that clearly commands support.
However Napo would prefer the term supervision of offenders rather
than management of them. The structures of NOMS and DOMs undermines
the ability of the Probation Service to carry out its role properly.
Napo argued in July 2010 that NOMS had failed to deliver its prime
objective of a merged, effective, prison and probation service.
7.16 In a briefing for parliamentarians, Performance
of NOMS; the case for restructuring,6 published
on 12 July, Napo argues that NOMS undermines the ability of the
Probation Service to achieve its aims. Senior managers in NOMS
now create policy and strategy in relation to the Probation Service
while their background and bias is exclusively in the Prison Service
and they have little experience of working with offenders in the
community. They are not therefore well placed to know how to introduce
efficiencies and prioritise spending in the community without
compromising public protection. Napo firmly believes that the
NOMS' structures must be reformed and dismantled to allow the
Probation Service to become effective again. Staff in the Prison
and Probation Services both perform demanding roles but these
responsibilities, whilst complementary, are very different. At
the moment the two services are wedded together in a coerced union
created on the erroneous basis that the two organisations perform
the same task.
7.17 The project was sold to probation as a merger;
in fact it has become a hostile takeover. As a result the relationship
is inefficient and it tends to be merely fortuitous if probation
is able under imposed policy to deliver its statutory duties.
At the moment Napo believes that there are less than a hundred
seconded probation personnel working within the NOMS' structure,
they have limited influence and are on different terms and conditions
to their prison and civil service counterparts. The Probation
Service is therefore impeded in delivering its offender management
duties because of the inequalities and discriminatory practices
that exist within the National Offender Management Service.
Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that are attached to community sentences AND
how effectively are these requirements being delivered?
7.18 Napo believes there has been strong evidence
available since 2008 to suggest that magistrates and judges are
unable to fully utilise requirements because of shortages and
delay. A survey Napo conducted in 2008 found that 80% of the 42
Probation Areas were reporting problems in providing the supervisory
service that the courts require, because of budgetary constraints.
7.19 The report, Restrictions on Sentencing,7
noted delays in starting programmes, particularly for alcohol,
unpaid work and even for the community sex offender programme.
The maximum wait for a start on the domestic violence programme
in 2008-09 varied from 13 to 42 weeks. A number of areas reported
in 2009-10 that Unpaid Work was no longer available instantly
because of severe waiting lists. In 2008-09 there was evidence
that the programme for internet downloaders was suspended because
of lack of resources and five areas reported that it was taking
months to get individuals on drink impaired driving programmes.
In some cases the order finished before the programme started
which meant those offenders were never treated.
7.20 Napo believes that this situation will get
incrementally worse as more cuts are introduced. Indeed it is
possible there will be a 25% reduction in pogramme availability
over the next two years. This is bound to have a negative effect
on reoffending rates and flies in the face of all empirical evidence.
Probation programmes and requirements have been increasingly used
since legislative changes in 2004 and the evidence so far suggests
that they are effective in contributing to reductions in reoffending.
7.21 An internal Ministry of Justice Study, Offender
Management Strategy: the evidence-base highlighting reducing reoffending,8
notes that the prison population increase over recent years is
driven more by changes in the criminal justice system than by
changes in offender behaviour. The report also notes that despite
big reductions in reoffending rates in the community the impact
on prison spaces has been fairly small because of the greater
use of custody for offenders.
7.22 The latest figures show that the reoffending
rate for persons leaving prison is 66%; for a probation order
without requirements it is 50%; but this falls significantly by
a further 16% for those on offending behaviour courses in the
community; by 13% for those on drug programmes and just over 12%
for those on education, training and employment courses.
What role should the private and voluntary services
play in the delivery of probation services?
7.23 Napo has already outlined in this evidence
that the voluntary sector has a vital role to play in the delivery
of offender services. Napo is concerned however that under a culture
of national competition only the largest voluntary sector providers
are likely to survive. The voluntary sector does find it difficult
to operate under the short-term contract culture. Often contracts
are only for two or three years which means that the voluntary
organisation has to spend a disproportionate amount of resources
on preparing and maintaining tenders and contracts. Until recently
a fixed proportion of the probation budget was ringfenced for
voluntary provision but, as Napo as outlined elsewhere, these
provisions tend to be compromised in harsh economic climates.
7.24 Again, as argued earlier in this submission,
the evidence so far is that private involvement has not proved
to be effective or economic. Napo would also argue that tag use
on its own is not effective but is more successful combined with
supervision, particularly for sex offenders and other offenders
supervised under multi-agency public protection arrangements.
Napo has also stated elsewhere in this report that unpaid work
and/or hostels may be subject to competitive tender and that this
will lead to a deterioration in service provision.
7.25 Napo believes that the voluntary sector
has a huge role to play in offering literacy and numeracy training
to offenders. A study, Literacy, Language and Speech Problems
amongst individuals on probation or parole,9 published
by Napo in October 2009 of 2,306 individuals on probation or parole
supervision revealed that 85% had either low educational attainment,
learning difficulties or had problems expressing themselves or
understanding what was being said to them. Despite that just one
was having an input from a speech or language specialist. The
report concluded that a failure to deal with communication needs
of offenders was a major contributory factor to the likelihood
of reoffending. Napo would like to see, therefore, far greater
collaboration between literacy and language experts and probation
staff for the benefit of those under supervision.
Does the Probation Service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
7.26 Napo believes there is merit in the comments
made by the Secretary of State for Justice, Ken Clarke, in June
to the effect that persons getting short custodial sentences receive
no assistance with rehabilitation and ought more effectively to
be dealt with under forms of supervision in the community.
7.27 However persons sentenced to 12 months or
less do not receive any statutory supervision from the Probation
Service. Those sentenced to a year or more on determinate sentences
are released at the halfway point and supervised until the sentence
expires. The Probation Service would not have the capacity at
present to take on the supervision of those currently receiving
short-term custodial sentences.
7.28 Figures for 2008, the latest date for which
statistics are available, show that 55,333 individuals were jailed
by the courts for six months or less. A further 9,602 received
a custodial sentence of between six and 12 months. Costs of incarcerating
an individual for a full year is currently estimated to be £45,000,
however this figure does not include the cost of health care,
education or other central expenditure. The real costs is likely
therefore to be in the region of £55,000 to £60,000.
The vast majority of those given six months or less served on
average two months. The short-term prison population accounts
for 7,000 of the daily jail population. The cost of incarcerating
those individuals was at least £350 million per annum. None
of this group are in prison long enough for any constructive rehabilitation
work to be done. Unsurprisingly therefore 75% of the group reoffend
within a short period of leaving custody.
7.29 In Napo's view this group could be supervised
in the community at less cost and with superior outcomes. An extra
£50 million for the Probation Service would allow for a thousand
additional staff to take on the supervision. Offenders would need
to be supervised on short orders of no more than six months with
a programme element, for example domestic violence, offending
behaviour or drug treatment taking no more than three or four
months. This would involve them participating in programmes several
times a week, which Napo is assured would not cause any psychological
harm. The transfer therefore of short-term prisoners on the probation
caseload would make substantial savings.
7.30 Napo produced a report in June 201010
with over 170 case histories where court report writers had recommended
non-custodial options but the person was jailed for less than
12 months. Clearly some of those sentenced to six months or less
had already been breached whilst on probation but the Napo report
indicates that there is substantial potential for alternative
arrangements. It is ironic therefore that the government is proposing
cutting the probation budget, which will certainly lead to more
people being jailed for six months or less than at present. The
cuts to probation therefore will vastly increase the expenditure
on prisons yet both items of expenditure come for the same Ministry
of Justice pot.
Could Probation Trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
7.31 The Probation Service could become more
involved in models of restorative justice. Evidence is starting
to be published suggesting outcomes are much better in terms of
reoffending rates than first believed. Hitherto evidence suggested
that reoffending rates from restorative justice were no different
from other forms of intervention. Napo has argued in the past
that levels of victim satisfaction and community confidence were
high for restorative justice and these criteria should be given
greater weight when determining whether restorative justice was
worthy of investment.
7.32 However over recent years reoffending rates
were a paramount factor in determining whether programmes and
interventions were deemed effective. Unpaid Work or community
service as it used to be known, where the individual is engaged
in assisting persons who have been victims of crime or are vulnerable
in some other way have been highly successful. Work with charities,
disabled children and the elderly have been particularly noteworthy.
Where unpaid work involves repetitive or menial tasks the satisfaction
levels and impact on self esteem of offenders have been particularly
low and have involved much higher levels of breaching, disobedience
and general anti-social behaviour on site.
Does the Probation Service handle different groups
of offenders appropriately eg women, young adults, black and minority
ethnic people, high and medium risk offenders?
7.33 All the statutory services have been criticised
for giving insufficient attention to the issues of gender, race
and disability. Probation is no exception and there is clearly
room to improve and expand resources. The Camden Women's Centre,
which has been in existence for some 20 years, is an excellent
example of what can be achieved through supervision and support
to women who have offended. There is clearly a need for the Probation
Service to engage more thoroughly with individuals who are in
young offender institutions.
7.34 Research conducted by Napo, referred to
earlier, suggests there is much room for improvement in engaging
with experts to aid with numeracy and literacy problems of all
offenders. Work is being done in many areas in trying to achieve
gang desistance and there is also room for expansion of this work.
Napo is deeply concerned at the lack of mandatory provision and
duties on local and central bodies to reduce inequality and therefore
contribute to reducing the amount of gun, knife and gang related
crime. Napo is currently working with the Society of Black Lawyers
and the National Black Police Association to produce amendments
to legislation to ensure more attention is given to excluded youth,
particularly black people, in our communities.
Is the provision of training adequate?
7.35 The Probation Service has a chequered history
with regard to training. There have been numerous reorganisations.
In 1995 for example Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, decided
that a qualification in social work was not the appropriate course.
In 1997 the Labour government introduced a new Diploma in Probation
Studies.
7.36 In 2006 there was yet another review and
work began to develop another qualification for practitioners
to be implemented by April 2010. The new award is currently known
as the Probation Qualification Award. New procedures are far more
complicated that earlier arrangements. All new practitioners will
be required to complete a "gateway to practice" before
commencing duties unsupervised. Following this initial induction
training, practitioners will move into the probation service officer
role, where they will have 12 months to complete NVQ Level 3 in
work with offending behaviour. Further qualifications will be
available and the person, to reach honours status, will be required
to train as a probation officer. Compared with 20 years ago the
main changes are a move away from university to on the job training,
that training is substantially cheaper and the structures are
more complicated.
7.37 The Ministry of Justice has decreed that
offenders be tiered from 1 to 4 according to risk they pose to
the public of reoffending. It has been stated that those in tier
3 and 4 must be supervised by a trained probation officer with
experience. Many areas struggle to fulfill this criteria. Under
an atmosphere of austerity, training is one of the first departmental
budgets to be affected. Current training arrangements are not
ringfenced. There is no guarantee therefore that areas will be
able to continue to train new people. As far as post qualification
training is concerned, little if anything occurs and the situation
is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.
8. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
8.1 The Probation Service received significant
increases in resources between 1997 and 2006. However research
shows that the majority of the increase did not reach the frontline
and was used to increase managerial posts, fund failed IT systems,
employ consultants and expand other areas of bureaucracy. Budgets
decreased from 2007 onwards and the number of qualified probation
officers is now lower than it was in 2003. The Probation Service
is expecting further cuts of 25% between 2010 and 2012-13. This
will make it impossible for it to carry out its statutory duties.
As a consequence, in Napo's view, there is likely to be a significant
rise in the short-term prison population.
8.2 The Probation Service has in Napo's view
been seriously hindered in carrying out its responsibilities by
the creation of the National Offender Management Service. This
together with the regional structures has become overtly bureaucratic
and has led to probation staff spending inordinate amounts of
time in front of computers and completing other requests for data.
Napo believes that there should be a separate operational arm
for the Probation Service with its own director and directorate.
8.3 All existing evidence suggest that reoffending
rates for those on community supervision are significantly less
than for those serving short periods in custody, especially if
the individual participates in an accredited programme which addresses
offending behaviour. All this progress faces being undermined
if budgets are further constrained and there is a real risk that
protection will be compromised.
September 2010
REFERENCES
1 Prison and
probation expenditure 1999-2009—Centre
for Crime and Justice Studies (Spring 2010).
2 Crispin Blunt
letter July 2010.
3 Memo from Director
of Finance at the MoJ to senior staff 09-08-10.
4 Objective
11—Offender Management Direct Contact Survey of Probation
Boards and Probation Trusts—December
2008 (Ministry of Justice).
5 Probation in
Context—the murders of Gabriel Ferez and Laurent Bonomo
- Napo (April 2009).
6 Performance
of NOMS: the case for restructuring—Napo (July 2010).
7 Restrictions
on Sentencing—Napo (March 2008).
8 Offender Management
Strategy: the evidence-base highlighting reducing reoffending—MOJ.
9 Literacy, Language
and Speech Problems amongst individuals on probation or parole—Napo
(October 2009).
10 Short-term
jail sentences—an effective alternative—Napo (June
2010).
Annex
DETERMINING PRE
SENTENCE REPORTS
I am writing to convey Napo's dismay and concern
both with regard to the content of this Probation Instruction
as well as the manner in which our comments on the draft were
received. As a central stakeholder, we welcome the opportunity
to contribute, through consultation, to the development of PIs
such as this. We appreciate that the drafting process can be complicated
and time consuming and taking account of all comments can prove
difficult. Nevertheless, we were most disappointed to discover
that our detailed submission had been almost completely ignored.
Moreover, there was no attempt made to either explore further
the content of our submission, even where it highlighted perceived
factual inaccuracies, or to explain why it was almost entirely
discounted.
We are inclined to the conclusion that this exercise
has been one where financial savings have been adjudged to be
paramount at the expense of both public safety and good professional
practice. I will return to our reasons for reaching this conclusion
below. In our submission, we asked the question: "What evidence
is provided to support any assertion that this ( a greater focus
on producing reports within 1-5 days and limiting the use of reports
written within 15-days) will produce a better, safer and more
effective outcome in terms of sentencing, compliance and reduced
re-offending rates?" The question was not answered neither
directly to us nor in the PI itself. We would still be interested
in the evidence to support this assertion. Our view is that the
opposite is likely to be true and that the erosion of thorough,
professional and well argued reports will also ultimately cost
more — though based on less readily quantifiable variables
than the rather simplistic calculation of costs associated with
how long it takes to write a report.
We highlighted in our submission that several attributions
in the PI to the SBC specification for assessments and pre sentence
reports were in fact inaccurate and thus misleading. No attempt
was made to rectify this misinterpretation of the specification.
We then went on to contextualise the preparation
and use of pre sentence reports. Without arguing with the primary
purpose of these reports, they can quite properly have more extensive
utility. Short reports (Oral/FDR) can be of benefit particularly
in cases where rehabilitative intervention is limited but they
can run counter to offender engagement where the development of
a relationship between supervisor and supervisee is paramount.
RESOURCE IMPACT
We do not accept the interpretation of timings for
the different types of report and believe that this should have
been a point of agreement with the unions prior to publication
otherwise, in the long run, it will cause difficulties. We are
also concerned by what we frankly see as a cynical attempt to
re-cast a Standard Delivery Report into a written report prepared
within 5 days. This is being done, in our view, because of the
belief that significant resource savings can thus be made. We
are concerned that this will pressurise practitioners into preparing
a thorough report more hastily. This will increase stress levels
amongst staff as they attempt to do a professional job in insufficient
time and without proper reflection and the ability to conduct
full checks on information. It also thus increases the risk of
mistakes being made.
Napo has never denied the place of both oral reports
and fast delivery reports but both should be brief exercises undertaken
at court "on the day". We remain of the view that adjourned
reports should be Standard Delivery Reports usually completed
in 15 working days. We are also of the view that such reports
are indeed "the standard" and as such we challenge the
target percentages for the different types of report which again
we see as nothing more than a cost cutting exercise.
Further, Napo would re-iterate its view that reports
should be prepared by suitably trained and qualified staff. Evidence
suggests that this is not happening universally and we believe
that NOMS should assume greater responsibility in ensuring that
it does.
Finally on the question of resources, we would comment
on the frankly bizarre emphasis in section 1.16 on the AUDIT screening
tool. What of all the other specialist assessment and screening
work that has to be undertaken from time to time? What of MAPPA,
drug, and psychiatric assessments? Whilst we accept that AUDIT
is important, we do question the focus on it to the exclusion
of all else.
THE ENCOURAGEMENT
OF POOR,
AND RISKY,
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
For many years, Napo has promoted the idea of a risk
screening tool and this is therefore a welcome development. However
we remain firm in our conviction that once a full risk assessment
is indicated, this should in turn trigger a full Standard Delivery
Report (I should perhaps also point out that in this letter at
least we will not dive into the muddied waters created by changing
nomenclature — PI 05/11 1.8 Trusts can continue to use
the existing court report templates but must remove reference
to "fast" delivery in the title.
All reports must be entitled Pre Sentence Reports
(PSRs). As our submission indicated, we
challenge the development of the concept of high-risk and low-risk
domestic abuse, child protection, sexual/violent offending and
mental health issues as a basis for deciding what sort of report
to prepare.
With particular reference to domestic violence, research
suggests victims have been subjected, on average, to 37 incidents
before contacting the police. Essential to managing the risk is
the assumption of a pattern of behaviour and a continuing risk
of harm. This requires a full pre-sentence report and exchange
of information with several agencies. Best practice is to conduct
two interviews to make the right decision about intervention.
It gives a poor message to the public and to victims that the
Probation Service will only offer a limited assessment. If reports
are completed on the day, there is a likelihood that assessments
will have to be based primarily on the offender's account. This
could increase risk of harm and reoffending and Trusts will be
failing to offer a proper service to victims.
Napo would have expected that NOMS to share these
concerns so is disappointed that they have not been addressed.
We believe it is necessary that this new approach to risk is brought
to the attention of charities and others working in the field
of domestic abuse, so that victims can be made aware of the potential
ways in which their cases may be handled.
We are also opposed to the promotion of a practice
whereby those who have failed to attend for their court report
interview may be assessed on the day of the adjourned hearing.
This is poor professional practice. Some defendants will use this
facility to mask the full facts relating to their situation. That
is to say, a practitioner, preparing a report under pressure at
court, will not be able to be as rigorous in either their enquiries
or their questioning and some defendants will take advantage of
this fact — thus potentially hiding significant risk issues.
Finally here, whilst not necessarily wanting to promote
OASys and pull-through reports, we would question how well these
new instructions can be melded to these tools. We are not convinced
that the relationship between risk screening, risk assessment
and the preparation of either oral or fast delivery reports has
been properly thought through and in addition we are concerned
that this will add unnecessary work for the practitioner.
TWO NEW
POINTS
Not covered in our submission on the draft PI were
the matters of Probation Trust Contract Managers and the Decision
Process at Annex B.
In the draft version of the PI, Chief Executives
of Probation Trusts were charged with actions which now become
the responsibility of contract managers. Whilst we may be able
to fathom who these people are, we wonder what, if anything, these
roles will mean to staff in the Probation Service?
We did not comment on the Decision Process at Annex
B because, in the draft, it was completely different. Our own
assessment of the final version at Annex B, and that of some practitioners
with whom we have spoken, suggests that this process is considerably
less than clear.
CLOSING REMARKS
It does appear that NOMS is re-discovering the merits
of face to face work with service users and the development of
a relationship based on trust (Offender Engagement Programme).
It is profoundly disappointing, therefore, that the preparation
of reports appears to be excluded from this awareness. In our
view this PI fundamentally undermines the efficacy of one of the
Probation Service's core tasks and it will lead not to better
and more efficient work but to poorer and more stressful practice
with less attention being paid both to victims and to offenders.
The relationship between probation practitioners
and the courts is also further eroded with Probation management
being assigned a more central role in the decision making process
— thus in our view usurping the authority of the court.
This PI appears to be based almost exclusively on
the need for short term financial gain and a rather unsophisticated
approach to cost/benefit analysis. I hope that, even at this belated
stage, NOMS will engage in dialogue with us over this. Based on
the information we are receiving from members it is clear that
they are profoundly concerned about the impact of this instruction
on the quality of their work. Napo will be providing guidance
to members relating to PI 05/11 and highlighting the concerns
raised in this letter with partners and stakeholders working in
and with the courts.
Jonathan Ledger
General Secretary
May 2011
| 
